Different Ethical Approaches Contractarianism Rules “signers” of the contract agree to abide by. We have a direct duty to respect the rights of “signers.” Indirect duty to respect “non- signers.” Cruelty-Kindness Direct duty to be kind. Direct duty to avoid being cruel. Generous racist = compassionate speciest. Utilitarianism Everyone’s interest counts and counts as much as everyone else’s. Interest-holders have no inherent value; only their interests.

“Inherent value, then, belongs equally to those who are the experiencing subjects of a life….whether it belongs to others—to rocks and rivers, trees and glaciers, for example—we do not know and may never know. But neither do we need to know, if we re to make the case for animal rights.” Tom Regan

Assume that scientists believe a cure for cancer (or AIDS or paralysis or diabetes or some other horrible human affliction) can be found through experimentation on animals. The experimentation involves suffering and death to the animals. Should scientists be permitted to conduct this research?

Scientists claim they can ensure the safety of a cosmetic product (e.g. deodorant, shampoo, makeup, etc.) by testing it first on animals. Should scientists be permitted to test this product on animals? Should they be able to test it on any animals they choose?

Do animals, like humans, possess the right to be free from human-inflicted pain and suffering? the right to life? the right to live in their unique natural habitats? the right to express their primal drives and instincts? What in our society would change if each of these rights were legally acknowledged?