When moral justification of the use of animals in the area of scientific experimentation is well thought-out, we rely on the principles of moral standing suggested by various philosophers. Philosophers try to find out whether animals count or whether animals can be brought under moral consideration. If they cannot be brought under the moral purview, then probably one cannot find any reason that it is morally wrong to use animals for human good, such as using them in painful scientific experiments. This paper brings out some of the principles suggested by philosophers in order for an agent to be considered morally. Further this paper suggests that most of these views do not provide a basis to include animals under the moral purview. Thereby, I put forward a perspective called the ‘common sense view’ to bring animals under the moral consideration which further implies that the use of animals in the area of scientific experimentation is morally unjustified.
Table of Contents
1. Moral standing: General Remarks
2. Philosophers on Moral Standing
2.1. Rationality
2.2. Sentience as a Basis of Moral Standing
2.3. Life as a Criteria for Moral Standing
2.4. Common Sense View of Moral Standing
Research Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this paper is to determine whether animals possess a moral standing and, consequently, if it is morally justified to perform scientific experiments on them for human benefit. The research critically examines existing philosophical principles to address the ethical dilemma of using animals in laboratory research.
- Analysis of rational agency as a criterion for moral status.
- Evaluation of sentience and the capacity to suffer as a foundation for moral consideration.
- Critique of the "reverence for life" principle in moral philosophy.
- Development of a "common sense view" to justify animal moral standing.
- Ethical implications of vivisection and human-centric medical research.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1. Rationality
Philosophers who rely on rationality as a criteria for moral standing generally hold that only rational agents can be brought under moral purview. Rationality has been one of the most often cited criteria for moral standing This view rests on the assumption of a human characteristic, namely, a characteristic that makes humans different from mere animals and maintains that this is the basis of our moral standing. This can be traced to famous greek philosopher Aristotle’s view that rationality is unique to humans. He saw nature as a hierarchy and maintained that less rational creatures like animals are made for the benefit of those that are more rational such as human beings. Aristotle maintains that plants exist for the sake of animals, and brute beasts for the sake of man (Aristotle quoted in Singer, 1990).
Thus, according to Aristotle’s principle of rationality nonhuman animals are incapable of having moral agency as human beings have. What seems to be drawn out Aristotle’s view is that animals cannot have full moral standing, although they might have some sort of lesser moral status.
A similar approach is taken by philosopher Immanuel Kant who suggests that as far as animals are concerned we have no direct moral duties; animals are not self conscious and are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man (Kant in Landau, 2007). It seems that Kant was in agreement with Aristotle as he, too, suggested that reason plays a critical role in morality. In quest to identify the universal principle that determines right and wrong, Kant argued that such a moral principle must be one of pure reason (as opposed to empirical reason) – with moral law being imposed by reason itself rather than by some external enforcer such as God.
Summary of Chapters
1. Moral standing: General Remarks: This chapter defines the concept of moral standing and outlines why an entity's well-being must be taken into account for its own sake rather than as a means to an end.
2. Philosophers on Moral Standing: This section provides an in-depth exploration of established philosophical theories—rationality, sentience, and life—that are commonly used to determine if an entity qualifies for moral consideration.
2.1. Rationality: An examination of Aristotle’s and Kant’s views, which argue that rationality is a necessary condition for moral agency and that non-rational beings like animals lack direct moral standing.
2.2. Sentience as a Basis of Moral Standing: A critique of utilitarian perspectives, primarily those of Peter Singer and Jeremy Bentham, which shift the focus from rationality to the capacity for pain and pleasure.
2.3. Life as a Criteria for Moral Standing: An analysis of Albert Schweitzer’s and Kenneth Goodpaster’s "reverence for life" theory, which argues that all living things inherently possess moral value.
2.4. Common Sense View of Moral Standing: The author proposes a synthesized approach, arguing that since animals share characteristics like sentience and consciousness with humans, they possess moral standing and should not be used as experimental tools.
Keywords
Animals, Moral standing, Moral consideration, Scientific experiments, Morally unjustified, Rationality, Sentience, Life principle, Vivisection, Ethics, Speciesism, Common sense view, Moral agency.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this research paper?
The paper examines the moral status of animals, specifically investigating whether it is ethical to use them as subjects in scientific experiments for human gain.
What are the primary themes discussed in the text?
The text focuses on philosophical frameworks for moral status, specifically rationality, the capacity to suffer (sentience), and the inherent value of life.
What is the central research question?
The research asks: Is it morally justified to perform experiments on animals for human needs, and do animals have a legitimate moral standing?
Which scientific methods or philosophical approaches are applied?
The author uses a comparative philosophical analysis, evaluating historical and contemporary arguments from Aristotle, Kant, Bentham, and Singer to derive a new "common sense" perspective.
What is addressed in the main body of the paper?
The main body critically reviews established criteria for moral standing—rationality, sentience, and being alive—to expose their flaws before proposing a synthesis that protects animal interests.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include Moral standing, Sentience, Rationality, Vivisection, Speciesism, and Moral consideration.
Why does the author argue against the rationality criterion?
The author argues that using rationality as the sole basis for moral standing is inherently selfish, as it reduces sentient animals to mere tools for human convenience.
What is the "common sense view" proposed by the author?
It is a perspective that recognizes that while humans and animals differ in degrees of rationality and consciousness, they both share a status as living creatures that necessitates moral sensitivity and protection from harm.
Does the author believe animals are equal to humans?
No, the author clarifies that animals and humans differ in various ways, but emphasizes that this difference does not grant humans the right to treat animals without moral consideration.
What is the ultimate conclusion regarding animal experimentation?
The author concludes that because animals possess inherent moral standing as living, sentient beings, subjecting them to painful experiments is morally unjustified.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Mansi Handa (Autor:in), 2011, Moral Standing of Animals in Scientific Experiments, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/265487
