Common Property and Animal Testing

Q1. List ten real-world common property resources with which you are familiar. Describe an example of one of these common property resources that is not (tragically) overexploited (use the term “institution/s” in your discussion). The so-called tragedy of the commons is defined as the fact that people tend to exploit common resources to the maximum degree possible for their own benefit, thus indirectly harming other or future people who could benefit from the resource (“Tragedy of the Commons,” 2018).

Examples of common property include public parks, fish in the ocean, public monuments, highways, clean water, clean air, public bathrooms, trees, schools, and public playing fields. Although some of these resources are, indeed, exploited, this is not the case with all of them. For example, public monuments are usually relatively respected by individuals (although there is a risk of them being defaced).

But one of the reasons for this may be the fact that people are aware of the fact that their tax dollars go to support the cleanliness and upkeep of such monuments. There is also the question of respecting structures with historical significance. Finally, there is also the question of benefits derived from taking advantage of the public area.

While there is relatively little personal or economic benefit to be derived from defacing a public monument, on the other hand there is often great benefit to be derived from practices such as over-fishing (both in terms of the financial benefits of a company may derive from the exploitation and the personal pleasure that an individual may derive from consuming fish that is the result of over-fishing).

Using environmental resources, unlike doing damage to a publically-enjoyed area, is often a much more subtle act of destruction that will not draw negative consequences or obvious censure. Also, unlike graffiti or littering, it is more socially acceptable. Thus, the tragedy of the commons is not inevitable but certain commonly-shared areas are at higher risk. Q2. One of the longstanding, high-profile overtly ethical debates about nature and society is whether or to what degree animals should be used in medical and commercial research and testing.

The debate over animal testing is often framed in black-and-white terms, or a pro versus con debate. But there are many nuances and shades of grey within the debate. Animal testing has been used since the beginning of the history of science to test scientific hypotheses as well as potential treatments on humans. Those who advocate for scientific testing state that it offers unique benefits that cannot be replicated in experiments not using animals, particularly in regards to treatments that are ultimately designed to be used on humans (Hajar 2011).

Before regulations were put into place mandating structured testing protocols on animals before humans, drugs such as diethylene glycol (DEG) and thalidomide, drugs which were put on the market which had negative and lasting consequences for those who took them (Hajar 2011). Still, there can be no denying the fact that animal testing presupposes a hierarchy between humans and animals, placing human beings above animals in the hierarchy of who has a right to live.

Even if not all animals can be eliminated from current testing and continue to advance medical research, there can still be a commitment “(1) for the replacement of animals with non-living models” whenever possible, as well as the “(2) reduction in the use of animals; and (3) refinement of animal use practices” to eliminate the suffering experienced by animals (Hajar, 2011, par. 6). Even.