Introduction to Ethics Lecture 20 Cohen & The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research By David Kelsey.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 19 Regan & The Case for Animal Rights
Advertisements

Ethics Across the Curriculum.  Values Clarification  Presenting students cases and asking: “What do you think?”
Our Duties to Animals Animal Liberation: All Animals Are Equal —Peter Singer  A prejudice or bias toward the interests of members of one’s own species.
Animal Welfare and Animal Rights Based on Kernohan, A. (2012). Environmental ethics: An interactive introduction. Buffalo, NY: Broadview Press, Chapters.
Frameworks for Moral Arguments
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 17 Warren on Abortion
Moral Reasoning Making appropriate use of facts and opinions to decide the right thing to do Quotations from Jacob Needleman’s The American Soul A Crucial.
Kant’s Ethical Theory.
 Humans are metaphysically free  Our choices define us and as a result our intuitions about the human condition are satisfied.  Dualism  Kant  Existentialism.
SESSION-4: RESPECTING OTHERS AS HUMAN BEINGS. What is “respect”? Respect has great importance in everyday life Belief: all people are worthy of respect.
Introduction to basic principles
Immanuel Kant The Good Will and Autonomy. Context for Kant Groundwork for Metaphysics of Morals after American Revolution and Before French- rights.
The Case for Animals Singer’s Utilitarian Argument  What is morally relevant?  What makes someone/somethi ng worthy of moral consideration?  What.
1 II Animal Rights. 2 Note: Cohen’s paper was published in the New England Journal of Medicine; his primary audience consisted of doctors, not philosophers.
The Moral Status of the Non- Human World: Singer and Cohen.
Philosophy 220 The Moral Status of the Non-Human World: Cohen and Warren.
GARY HAIGH CAPACITY AND CONSENT. CONSENT Establishing consent is fundamental to respect for patients rights. It is a legal obligation.
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 6 Ayer and Emotivism By David Kelsey.
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 9 The Challenge of Cultural Relativism By David Kelsey.
Animal Rights Arguments Julia Kirby Consulting author: Holly L.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 7 The argument from evil By David Kelsey.
Animal Rights.
The treatment of animals Michael Lacewing
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 19 Regan & The Case for Animal Rights By David Kelsey.
Chapter Eleven: Animal Rights and Environmental Ethics
Ethics of Administration Chapter 1. Imposing your values? Values are more than personal preferences Values are more than personal preferences Human beings.
“A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world.”
Understanding Animal Welfare Issues. Student Learning Objectives Identify ethics involved with animal production. Discuss animal welfare and animal rights.
INFORMED CONSENT Some Philosophical Puzzles Professor David Archard
 The benefits of embryo research come mainly from stem cell usage  it is hoped that stem cells can be stimulated to develop any tissue or organ of the.
Objectives: SWBAT  Identify Immanuel Kant  Analyze Kantian Rationality  Identify and discuss the Categorical Imperative.
READING #1: “What This Book is About” Chapter One from The Ethics of Teaching.
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 20 Cohen & The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research By David Kelsey.
Moral Issues In Policing. Moral Issues in Policing Should police be held to the same or higher standards than other members of society? – Courage? – Fairness?
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 12 Kant By David Kelsey.
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 7 Mackie & Moral Skepticism
Contractualism and justice (4) Methodological issues.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 7 The argument from evil By David Kelsey.
ETHICALETHICALETHICALETHICAL PRINCIPLESPRINCIPLESPRINCIPLESPRINCIPLES.
Morality in the Modern World
Chapter Eleven: Animal Rights and Environmental Ethics Review Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings (10 th ed.) Julie C. Van Camp, Jeffrey Olen, Vincent.
An act is moral if it brings more good consequences than bad ones. What is the action to be evaluated? What would be the good consequences? How certain.
Animals and Persons. Ethical status for animals Kantian and utilitarian ethics traditionally extended to all people, but only people Kant: all rational.
Kant and Kantian Ethics: Is it possible for “reason” to supply the absolute principles of morality?
Chapter 38 Agency Twomey, Business Law and the Regulatory Environment (14th Ed.)
Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) Influenced Secular Moral Thought. Raised in a Protestant Household. No formal Church Structure. Morality ground in reason,
AS Ethics Utilitarianism Title: - Preference Utilitarianism To begin… What is meant by preference? L/O: To understand Preference Utilitarianism.
Immanuel Kant and the Enlightenment Immanuel Kant: German ( ) Enlightenment: 1700's (18th Century) Applies the new rational scientific method of.
Kantian Ethics Good actions have intrinsic value; actions are good if and only if they follow from a moral law that can be universalized.
MODERN UTILITARIANISM AND GENETIC ENGINEERING IS IT WRONG TO INTERFERE WITH NATURE? CAN WE JUSTIFY THE SACRIFICE OF A FEW LIVES TO SAVE MANY? DO ANIMALS.
Chapter 8: The Ethical Treatment of Animals Gaverick Matheny, “Utilitarianism and Animals” – Matheny's main 2-part argument (part 1): 1. Being sentient.
The Ethics of Care According to this method, we have an obligation to exercise special care toward the people with whom we have valuable, close relationships.
Philosophical approaches to animal ethics
Chapter 9: The Ethical Treatment of Animals
Michael Lacewing Eating animals Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 12 Kant
Stage 2 Philosophy Moral Theories St John’s Grammar School
universalizability & reversibility
Animals and Persons.
Kant and Kantian Ethics:
On Whiteboards: Do animals have any moral status (should they be considered when making moral decisions)? Whether you answered yes or no, say why. On what.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 15 Ethics #1: Utilitarianism
Ethics in Research.
Lecture 09: A Brief Summary
Lecture 04: A Brief Summary
Kant’s view on animals is ‘anthropocentric’ in that it is based on a sharp distinction between humans and non-human animals. According to Kant, only.
Animal Suffering and Rights
All Animals are Created Equal
Speciesism and the Idea of Equality
Presentation transcript:

Introduction to Ethics Lecture 20 Cohen & The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research By David Kelsey

Why animals have no rights Cohen thinks that animals do not have rights – They aren’t members of the moral community – Only members of the moral community have rights

Rights defined Rights: – A claim or potential claim that one party may exercise against another. – The target against whom a claim may be made can be a single person, a group or a community. – The content of rights claims also varies greatly: life, property… – To comprehend any genuine right we must know who holds the right, against whom it is held and to what it is a right.

Only members of the moral community have rights Rights as Cohen defines them are claims or potential claims within a community of moral agents. Rights arise and can only be defined among beings who actually do or can make moral claims against one another.

Only humans are members of the moral community Only humans are described as members of the moral community: – For Kant, only humans possess a moral will and the freedom to use it… – Only humans confront choices that are purely moral – Only humans follow moral laws – Human beings are morally autonomous Animals aren’t members of the moral community: – Animals lack the capacity for free moral judgment – They cannot exercise or respond to moral claims – They are not morally autonomous Thus, animals aren’t members of the moral community. Thus, animals do not have rights. Thus, when we conduct research on animals we do not violate their rights.

Objection: some humans aren’t members of the moral community An objector may claim that there are some human beings who aren’t morally autonomous: – They lack the freedom to use a moral will. Cohen’s response: – Human beings may or may not retain the ability to make moral choices given a disability. – Animals don’t have the ability though. – Humans may be the subjects of experiments only with their voluntary consent. Their free choices must be respected. – But it is impossible for an animal to give voluntary consent.

A second objection A second objection: – Many animals exhibit the ability to reason, to communicate, to care passionately for their young, to have desires and preferences for this or that. – Thus, animals are members of the moral community as well. Cohen’s reply: – The capacities of the higher animals still don’t entail their membership in the moral community. – Members of the moral community must be able to discern whether a given act ought or ought not to be performed. – Members must be able to impose restraints on themselves…

The Utilitarian argument The Utilitarian argues: – Animals are sentient and so can feel pleasure and pain. – All or nearly all experimentation on animals imposes pain and suffering. – Such experimentation isn’t necessary. – Thus, the laboratory use of animals must be ended.

Cohen in reply Cohen in reply: – Cohen asserts that human pain and suffering matters more than does animal pain and suffering. – Cohen is a Speciesist. A Utilitarian like Singer will argue that pain is pain no matter who feels it. Cohen thinks there are relevant differences between species though. Thus, the pain and suffering of humans matters more – Examples include: humans engage in moral reflection, humans are morally autonomous, humans are members of moral communities, humans have rights. Cohen the speciesist: – Obligations are owed according to the differing natures of the beings considered – So humans owe to other humans a degree of moral regard that cannot be owed to animals.

Cohen’s second reply A second reply: – For the Utilitarian reply to work, we must calculate and weigh out all the consequences of both the use and nonuse of animals in laboratory research. – But we cannot ignore the disadvantageous consequences of not using animals in research. – And we cannot ignore the advantages that are only attainable through their research. – But every disease eliminated, every vaccine developed, every method of pain relief devised, every surgical procedure invented, virtually every modern medical therapy, is due in part or in whole to experimentation using animals. – Thus, to refrain from using animals in biomedical research is on utilitarian grounds morally wrong.

Cohen’s conclusions Conclusions: – 1. We must treat animals as humanely as possible. But some animal experimentation is necessary for no other methods now known (in vitro experimentation, computer simulation, etc.) can fully replace the testing of a drug, a procedure, or a vaccine on a live organism. In the United States federal regulations require the testing of new drugs on animals before humans are exposed. – 2. We should increase the use of animals in biomedical research wherever we can, not decrease it. We should avoid humans as experimental subjects as far as is possible. If human beings must be experimented on we must ask whether all that can be done has been done to reduce and eliminate the risks We are right to require thorough experimentation on animal subjects before humans are involved. Humans should not be subjected to risks that could be had by animals