Accept No Substitutes: The Ethics of Alternatives

Hastings Center Report 42 (s1):S16-S18 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It is common to argue that animal experimentation is justified by its essential contribution to the advancement of medical science. But note that this argument actually contains two premises: an empirical claim that animal experimentation is essential to the advancement of medical science and an ethical claim that if research is essential to the advancement of medical science, then it is justified. Both claims are open to challenge, but in the logic of the case, only one of them needs to be shown false or moot in order to refute the argument. I argue that the ethical claim does not withstand scrutiny. In addition, the main so-called “alternatives” to animal research do not merit that label since they still involve the use of nonhuman animals.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,551

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-12-07

Downloads
76 (#276,915)

6 months
7 (#722,178)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Joel Marks
University of New Haven

References found in this work

Brute experience.Peter Carruthers - 1989 - Journal of Philosophy 86 (May):258-269.
Death is a welfare issue.James W. Yeates - 2010 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (3):229-241.
On Due Recognition of Animals Used in Research.Joel Marks - 2011 - Journal of Animal Ethics 1 (1):6-8.

Add more references