2. Chapter 7. Human Use of Non-Human Animals: A Philosopher's Perspective
3. Chapter 7. Human Use of Non-Human Animals: A Philosopher's Perspective Keywords: animal rights; animal welfare; benefit; causal agency; experiment; moral agency; moral considerability; moral community; quality of life; speciesagency while others do not enjoy quality of life.
4. There is increasing debate about using animals in research. Chapter 7. Human Use of Non-Human Animals: A Philosopher's Perspective
5. Why is it permissible to do to animals what it is impermissible to do to humans? Chapter 7. Human Use of Non-Human Animals: A Philosopher's Perspective
6. The answer that research benefits humans does not on its own prevail because it is clear that similar research carried out on humans would provide equal benefit. Chapter 7. Human Use of Non-Human Animals: A Philosopher's Perspective
7. The answer that it depends on species may be dealt with in considering two levels of moral considerability. Chapter 7. Human Use of Non-Human Animals: A Philosopher's Perspective
8. At level one, both humans and animals have a quality of life that can be enhanced or diminished. Chapter 7. Human Use of Non-Human Animals: A Philosopher's Perspective
9. On a quality-of-life basis both humans and (higher) animals have moral status. Chapter 7. Human Use of Non-Human Animals: A Philosopher's Perspective
10. At level two we note that while animals can be causal agents they cannot be moral agents: they are outside the ‘moral community’. Chapter 7. Human Use of Non-Human Animals: A Philosopher's Perspective
11. If this is presented as a justification for animal experimentation we should note that some humans, by reason e.g. of illness, lack moral agency while others do not enjoy quality of life. Chapter 7. Human Use of Non-Human Animals: A Philosopher's Perspective
Editor's Notes
Keywords: animal rights; animal welfare; benefit; causal agency; experiment; moral agency; moral considerability; moral community; quality of life; species Summary There is increasing debate about using animals in research. Why is it permissible to do to animals what it is impermissible to do to humans? The answer that research benefits humans does not on its own prevail because it is clear that similar research carried out on humans would provide equal benefit. The answer that it depends on species may be dealt with in considering two levels of moral considerability. At level one, both humans and animals have a quality of life that can be enhanced or diminished. On a quality-of-life basis both humans and (higher) animals have moral status. At level two we note that while animals can be causal agents they cannot be moral agents: they are outside the ‘moral community’. If this is presented as a justification for animal experimentation we should note that some humans, by reason e.g. of illness, lack moral agency while others do not enjoy quality of life.
