-
14 Rational Engagement, Emotional Response, and the Prospects for Moral Progress in Animal Use “Debates”
- The MIT Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
14 Rational Engagement, Emotional Response, and the Prospects for Moral Progress in Animal Use “Debates” Nathan Nobis Morality is the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing. —James Rachels A Methodological Focus Synopsis: A focus of this chapter is on how to evaluate reasons for and against moral positions. This chapter is designed to help people rationally engage moral issues regarding the treatment of animals, specifically in experimentation, research , product testing, and education. Little “new” philosophy is offered here, strictly speaking. New arguments are unnecessary to help make progress in how people think about these issues. What is needed are improved abilities to engage the arguments already on the table, for example, stronger skills at identifying and evaluating the existing reasons given for and against conclusions on the morality of various uses of animals. To help improve these abilities, this chapter sets forth a set of basic but powerful “logical skills” for rationally evaluating arguments. These skills emerge from reflection on some historical moral issues: an argument in defense of slavery, an argument against women being educated, and, as a nonhistorical case, an argument in favor of eating meat. These skills help us see these arguments’ exact faults. And they are generally useful, for being applicable to any moral issue. Dozens of common moral defenses of animal use are then evaluated using these skills. This application reveals that all of these arguments are unsound: they all have either false premises (and most animal experimenters agree, since they reject these premises) or premises that are in need of rational defense: questions about them need answers; and objections 238 Chapter 14 require responses or positive reasons must be given in their favor, or both. This result is important. If animal experimenters and their supporters lack a sound argument that morally justifies animal use, then this fact must be faced with intellectual and moral integrity. Such integrity requires, at least, far more serious engagement with the issues, perhaps even some genuinely “new” philosophy. More likely, it requires widespread change in beliefs about, attitudes toward, and, especially, in the treatment of animals. Demonstrating that no good moral reasons have been given in favor of much animal experimentation does not show that it is morally impermissible . In defense of this claim, it is observed that a broad, pluralistic case has already been made for the view that much, if not all, animal experimentation is wrong. This cumulative case is based on every major moral perspective that plausibly explains the moral relations among human beings , especially our obligations to vulnerable humans. The costs for rejecting this cumulative case are great, for both animals and human beings. Displaying this case is important, also, because many people seem to think that moral views highly critical of animal experimentation are “fringe” positions. They are not: they are supported by the most plausible moral principles and methods of moral reasoning that we know. Again, these facts need to be engaged more seriously. It is possible that the preceding claims are mistaken and the arguments for them unsound. But what kinds of reasons are needed to try to show this, not just insist it? Methodological questions like this are the backdrop here. Explicitly discussing how to think about moral issues—in other words, how to identify, evaluate, and develop arguments—should improve what is thought about them. This focus should help prepare the way for more engaging and genuine debate on these issues and contribute to moral progress in thought, feeling, action, and policy. Why There Is a Moral Issue: Harms to Animals Synopsis: Animal usage is a moral issue because animals are harmed in experimentation. Any time a being is harmed there is a moral issue: we can reasonably ask whether such harms are morally justified, whether there are good moral reasons for causing or allowing such harms. How are animals harmed in experimentation? According to U.S. government estimates, each hour in the United States many people involved in education, the sciences, pharmaceutical and consumer products industries, [54.144.233.198] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 16:35 GMT) Rational Engagement, Emotional Response, and Moral Progress 239 and related fields and industries kill an average of at least 57,000 mice, rats, birds, dogs, cats, birds, primates, and other animals (USDA 2000). This adds up to 1.4 million animals killed per day, 500 million each year. (In contrast, around two million Americans die each year...