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