AbstractEthical debate about the use of animals in science is argued within different ethical frameworks; mainly utilitarianism, deontology, relativism or emotional ethics, with some debaters preferring particular frameworks. Stakeholders to the debate are veterinarians, scientists using animals, animal welfare groups and the general public. To estimate the balance of ethical frameworks used, we ran a discourse analysis of written texts by each stakeholder . The discourse analysis targeted the description of animals, instances of emotional language and language associated with utilitarianism, deontology and relativism. Frequencies were compared using ANOVAs and Tukey tests. All stakeholders used words associated with all frameworks but emotional language was the most used followed by utilitarian , relativist and deontological language. Emotional language was used in texts from the general public more than in texts from veterinarians and scientists and animal welfare representatives . Animals were mainly described in a utilitarian way , more frequently by scientists than the general public . All stakeholders preferentially used negative emotional language when referring to animals than positive , and all stakeholders prioritised human interests over animals . Not surprisingly, a mixture of ethical frameworks were used to assess the ethics of animal experimentation. However, the language used in texts from animal welfare groups and the general public suggest that those two groups preferentially build arguments with emotion rather than utilitarianism, a framework that is privileged by veterinarians and scientists since they primarily use animals.
Similar books and articles
Using Language to Find If Australian Animal Ethics Committees Use Emotion or Ethics to Assess Animal Experiments.Mikaela Ciprian, Laura D'Olimpio, Ram Pandit & Dominique Blache - unknown
Language, Power and the Social Construction of Animals.Arran Stibbe - 2001 - Society and Animals 9 (2):145-161.
Ethical Obligations of Veterinarians and Animal Scientists in Animal Agriculture.Bernard E. Rollin - 1989 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2 (3):225-234.
Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness.Kelly Oliver - 2010 - Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):267-280.
Animals, Politics, and Morality.Robert Garner - 1993 - Distributed Exclusively in the Usa by Palgrave.
Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship with Animals.Mark H. Bernstein - 2004 - University of Illinois Press.
Animal Ethics and the Scientific Study of Animals: Bridging the “Is” and the “Ought”.David Fraser & Rod Preece - 2004 - Essays in Philosophy 5 (2):12.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads