Two Key Figures in the Animal Experiments Debate Draw Different Lessons From Public Attitudes
Introduction
The debate over animal experimentation is a complex one, with strong arguments on both sides. Two of the leading figures in this debate are Tom Regan and Peter Singer. Regan argues that animals have inherent rights that should be respected, while Singer argues that the interests of animals should be weighed against the benefits of research.
Regan's Argument
Regan argues that animals are "subjects-of-a-life," meaning that they have an inherent value that should be respected. He believes that animals have the right to life and the right to be free from pain and suffering. Regan's argument is based on the idea that animals are capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, and that they have the capacity to suffer. He believes that this capacity for suffering gives animals a moral status that should be respected.
Singer's Argument
Singer argues that the interests of animals should be weighed against the benefits of research. He believes that it is permissible to use animals in research if the benefits of the research outweigh the harms to the animals. Singer's argument is based on the idea of utilitarianism, which holds that the best action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Conclusion
The debate over animal experimentation is a complex one, with strong arguments on both sides. Regan argues that animals have inherent rights that should be respected, while Singer argues that the interests of animals should be weighed against the benefits of research. This debate is likely to continue for many years to come, as there is no easy answer to the question of whether or not it is morally acceptable to use animals in research.
Citation: Chapman and Hall 1989 - Animal experimentation - 268. Addresses questions of practice and philosophy policy and.
Komentar