Duties to Non-Human Animals (Testing) Flashcards
How many scientific procuedures involving animals were completed in Britain?
40 million
Of the 40 million scientific procedures involving animals, how many were experimental procedures?
1.73 million
What are the five grades of severity concerning experimentation?
- Sub-threshold;
- Non-recovery;
- Mild;
- Moderate;
- Severe
What is clear from the thresholds?
Oftentimes animal experiments are harmful for the animals involved
What do animals lack in the testing process?
Consent
Quote the Royal Society’s statement on the use of animals in research.
‘From antibiotics and insulin to blood transfusions and treatments for cancer or HIV, virtually every medical achievement in the past century has depended directly or indirectly on research using animals, including veterinary medicine.’
What are the two premises and conclusion for the argument from benefit?
P1: Non-consensual experiments on non-human animals allow us to secure important benefits.
P2: If experiments on non-human animals allow us to secure important benefits, then those experiments are morally permissible (even when they are non-consensual).
C: Therefore, non-consensual experiments on non-human animals are morally permissible.
What can the argument from benefit be appealed to in support of?
The common assumption
What is the common assumption?
While non-consensual research on human subjects is not morally acceptable, non-consensual research on animals can be acceptable when there is the prospect of significant benefits
What is the amended argument from benefit?
P1: Non-consensual experiments on human beings allow us to secure important benefits.
P2: If experiments on human beings allow us to secure important benefits, then those experiments are morally permissible (even when they are non-consensual)
C: Therefore, non-consensual experiments on human beings are morally permissible.
How does Frey challenge the argument from benefit?
‘Any reliance upon the argument from benefit… has to be accompanied by a further argument establishing that while we may use animals as a means to the ends of scientific and medical inquiry, we may not use humans to these ends
If we use the argument from benefit to support the common assumption, what do we need to do?
Explain how we can resist the amended argument from benefit
If we reject the argument from benefit, what does this do?
Push us away from the common assumption and towards abolitionism
If we accept the argument from benefit, we may also be committed to what?
Accepting the amended argument from benefit, which pushes us towards the extreme pro-research position
What is the problem with making the distinction between non-human animals and human animals?
That making a moral distinction purely on the grounds of species membership is to be guilty of ‘speciesism’.