Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Animal Rights and Ethics
Ingram (2001) in an article hosted by Stop Animal Exploitation NOW! (SAEN) organization reports accusations of animal rights abuses by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). There are three levels of animal use in research: experiments with minimal distress, experiments with the potential for distress but using pain relievers and experiments with the potential for distress without medication. Detailed regulations in the Animal Welfare Act state that there must be justification for moving to different levels of use and the USDA is accused by SAEN of ignoring these laws.
The underlying ethics behind the allegations against the USDA are that it is always unethical to allow animals to be in pain in scientific experiments. However, the law is not on the accusers' side, and therefore, they quibble that researchers unnecessarily and illegally move to levels of research in violation of the Animal Welfare Act.
For the author's part (Ingram, 2001), he presents both sides of the debate. Spokespeople for the USDA report that they are complying with appropriate laws and reporting requirements, but did not reveal why it was necessary to move to higher levels of animal use. However, it only seems logical that they would not have done so if they could accomplish the same results without doing so. And, researchers need the flexibility to engage in whatever level of animal use is necessary to benefit humans and should be able to conduct their activities without harassment by groups such as SAEN.
Kant would support the USDA while a utilitarian view would not. According to Kant, morally permissible actions are those actions that could be willed by all rational individuals. Animals lack a will, and therefore do not have intrinsic value. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, judges actions based upon their consequences and seeks to maximize the utility, or good, of those consequences while minimizing the harms. To give more importance to some things over others is wrong. Given the differences in Kant's view and utilitarianism, it would be impossible to develop a universal maxim or greater good, because animal rights activists and scientific researchers would be displeased with the actions that they would be forced to act on.
Bibliography
Ingram, D. (2001, July 18) Animal activists issue complaint. The Chronicle. Retrieved April 19, 2004 from Web site: http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/media-chr-18jul2001.html
These abilities are inclusive of memory emotion, belief, desire, intentional actions and an awareness of the future. With these things being understood this theory asserts that mammals not only have physical bodies that are alive but they also function as psychological beings whose existence can get better or worse. Proponents of this theory argue that other mammals have this capacity even though they cannot use human language to articulate
Two main aims of the zoos are highlighted by the author in the article. Firstly, zoos provide the environments that are suitable and represent some level of wilderness. Secondly, the zoos must provide entertainment to the visitors. But the zoos have been criticized by the author. One of the most important facts in these cases is the relationship between pornography and zoos as given by the authors. The way
Animals in captivity, for example, have often been genetically, behaviorally or anatomically manipulated in order to enhance acclimation to the new environment. Similarly, animals have been neutered, declawed or defanged to be more compatible with their human keepers. Those who are in support of captivity of animals need to revisit such earlier condoned behavior and ensure that animals receive necessary care, nutrition and exercise and live in proper caging
Animal rights activist and Professor Tom Regan holds the position that it is justifiable to completely abolish the use of animals in science, agriculture, hunting and so on. He justifies this position on the theory of inherent value which he defines as the state in which every being is more than a mere receptable, and he concludes that all who have inherent value are to have it equally. Therefore, if
The Moral Equation: Observations of animals, whether in the wild, in captivity, or in experimental cages reveal undeniable evidence that they perceive physical pain and discomfort as well as pain as acutely as we do (Tangley 2000). Anecdotal evidence of numerous well documented instances seems to suggest that many animals also experience emotions such as grief from of loss of companionship (Moussaieff-Masson 1995). Not uncommonly, it is scientists and medical researchers themselves
Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy Most philosophy is directed at and in reference to human behavior and human responsibility yet it is presumptuous to believe that Aristotle when building the basis for Natural Law Theory did not include within his biological ideal the actions of humans toward other living beings. Reaching final mature form is said to be the goal for beings when one applies the teleological theory of Natural Law