Applied ethics

Topic: Applied ethics

 

Paper details:

Cohen argues that animals do not have rights because they lack cognitive abilities required for being moral agents and having moral autonomy. Do you agree with Cohen’s argument? Explain why or why not. Unlike Cohen, Elizabeth Warren argues that non-human animals do have some rights (e.g. the right to life, freedom of movements, etc.) but that these rights are (very) weak compared to human rights, so much so that it is in most cases morally permissible to perform experiments on them. Is Warren’s approach correct? Explain why or why not. THIS ONE QUESTION WITH TWO PARTS TO IT In his text, Gaverick Matheny argues that the vast majority of experiments performed in research labs on non-human animals are not morally justified because they cause significant pain to millions of animals but produce uncertain or insufficient benefit to humans. Do you agree with this conclusion? Explain why or why not.Furthermore, Matheny thinks that even if an experiment is justified on utilitarian grounds (that is, the amount of benefit resulting from it is actually greater than the amount of pain it produces), we need to make sure that we are not acting out of our speciesist prejudice: “Would researchers contemplating an animal experiment be willing, then, to place an orphaned human infant in the animal’s place? If they are not, then their use of an animal is simple discrimination on the basis of species, which, as we found above, is morally unjustifiable” (pp. 22-3). What do you think about this claim? THERE IS NO NEED TO CITE FROM THE MATERIALS PLEASE COMPLEbcqTE AT LEAST 330 words

My Homework Nest
Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -