Q: Why is self defense justified?
A: The question of consuming animals for the purposes of life saving experimentation is closely akin to the justification for self defense. If you have an attacker that will kill you that will not stop unless you kill them then it seems you are free to defend yourself.
For animal experimentation it is as if to stop the attacker you must kill a number of innocent bystanders. Also if we assume incrementalism, giving the rights of non-humans less value than humans, we further complicate our calculations. If we do not consider incrementalism as a reality then it would be equally permissible to use humans for experimentation.
I keep wondering why it is permissible to experiment on animals, if the need is great enough, but it seems never to be permissible to experiment on humans against their wishes even when a great multitude can be saved if this happens. Maybe humans consent is more important due to their higher cognitive capacities, but I'm inclined to think this feeling is also informed to some extent by a speciesist bias.
In the end the extremely confusing and hard to calculate complications that come up when justifying the use of animals for experimentation inclines me to be against it.
A: The question of consuming animals for the purposes of life saving experimentation is closely akin to the justification for self defense. If you have an attacker that will kill you that will not stop unless you kill them then it seems you are free to defend yourself.
For animal experimentation it is as if to stop the attacker you must kill a number of innocent bystanders. Also if we assume incrementalism, giving the rights of non-humans less value than humans, we further complicate our calculations. If we do not consider incrementalism as a reality then it would be equally permissible to use humans for experimentation.
I keep wondering why it is permissible to experiment on animals, if the need is great enough, but it seems never to be permissible to experiment on humans against their wishes even when a great multitude can be saved if this happens. Maybe humans consent is more important due to their higher cognitive capacities, but I'm inclined to think this feeling is also informed to some extent by a speciesist bias.
In the end the extremely confusing and hard to calculate complications that come up when justifying the use of animals for experimentation inclines me to be against it.
No comments:
Post a Comment