A Rational Defense of Animal Experimentation

Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):49-62 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Many people involved in the life sciences and related fields and industries routinely cause mice, rats, dogs, cats, primates and other non-human animals to experience pain, suffering, and an early death, harming these animals greatly and not for their own benefit. Harms, however, require moral justification, reasons that pass critical scrutiny. Animal experimenters and dissectors might suspect that strong moral justification has been given for this kind of treatment of animals. I survey some recent attempts to provide such a justification and show that they do not succeed: they provide no rational defense of animal experimentation and related activities. Thus, the need for a rational defense of animal experimentation remains

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,764

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
2009-01-28

Downloads
82 (#184,986)

6 months
6 (#200,874)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Nathan Nobis
Morehouse College

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references