The rights of man and animal experimentation

Journal of Medical Ethics 16 (3):160-161 (1990)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Since emotions give contradictory signals about animal experimentation in medical science, man's relationship to animals must be based upon reason. Thomas Aquinas argues that man is essentially different from animals because man's intellectual processes show evidence of an abstract mechanism not possessed by animals. Man's rights arise in association with this essential difference. The consequence is that only man possesses true rights by Aquinas's definition; animals have them only by analogy. However, cruelty to animals is illicit and they should be protected, principally not because they have rights, but because he who is cruel to animals is more likely to be cruel to his fellowman. If there is a need for animal experimentation in science for the good of man, this approach gives philosophical justification for experimentation, since man's well-being must come before that of animals because of his unique possession of rights. However, those experiments should be carried out in the kindest way possible, to promote kindness towards man. To see man as solely part of a biological continuum in competition for rights with those beings close to him biologically, detracts from man's dignity.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,283

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Animal rights.Shasta Gaughen (ed.) - 2005 - San Diego: Greenhaven Press.
Animal experimentation and animal rights.Ruth Friedman (ed.) - 1987 - Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Animal rights and welfare.Jeanne Williams (ed.) - 1991 - New York: H.W. Wilson.
Animal rights: moral theory and practice.Mark Rowlands - 2009 - New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Animal rights: what everyone needs to know.Paul Waldau - 2011 - New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Util-izing animals.Hugh Lafollette & Niall Shanks - 1995 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 12 (1):13-25.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-13

Downloads
59 (#273,661)

6 months
10 (#276,350)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The three rs: A restrictive and refutable rigmarole.H. Lansdell - 1993 - Ethics and Behavior 3 (2):177 – 185.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references