Animal Rights课件
Animal rights
Joel Feinberg Animal Rights:she discsss two basic ethical concepts: rights and interest.her main argument: to have a right is to have a claim to something and against someone, the recognition of these claims which could be used to protect one's legal rights or one's moral rights (conscience).In either case, we appeal to the enlightened conscience.To have a right in the full moral sense of the word, then is to have enlightened conscience.But there is another, conceptual way of having rights.There are certain kinds of beings that can have rights because we can meaningfully predicate rights to them.Such beings have only contingent rights which are always in some way combined with the rights of the enlightened conscience. The rights of seven main groups:1) Individual animals: there are legal rules against cruelty and meaningless killing of animals, but it does not solve the problem whether individual animals have rights or not.The law reflects that we have duties regarding animals but not necessarily to animals. Wt difference? Animals aren't genuine moral agents, so our POV decides the laws. They cannot be reasoned with their responsibility; they are inflexible to future contingencies, they are subject to fits of instinctive passion which they are incapable of repressing or controlling. Common reasons to dent animal rights:Animals are intellectually incompetent, we cannot reason with them.They cannot claim their own rights by making a motion, or appearing in court on their own.Animals don't understand whether any of their rights have been violated and they cannot respond adequately to that. Feinberg: the ability to understand your own rights and set the legal machinery toward protecting them are not necessary for the profession of rights.If that were the case, incompetent human beings would be deprived of rights.He offers a more sound argument: a being that has rights is one that has interests and could be represented; one that is capable of being a beneficiary in his own person. Unfortunately, animals are incapable of interests. Animals are like mere things why In order to have interests: one has to have co-native life, conscious wishes, desires and hopes,aims and goals and so on. Animals lack co-nation.They have no interest to be protected by moral and legal rules. Without interest a creature can have no “good” of its own, the achievement of which can be its due.→ The values of animals consist entirely of their being objects of other beings‟ interests. So, the laws against cruelty against an imals are laws for us, not for the animals. We don't want to encourage cruel behavior in humans. But animals do have interests in an important sense→Many of the higher animals have appetites urges, rudimentary purposes, the integrated satisfaction of which constitutes their welfare or their good that is worth protecting.Then, animals are among the sorts of beings that can have rights of some sort. Eg: pets made beneficiaries and trustees of funds.But it still is confusing to talk about animals as moral agents who have rights and duties. Conclusion: because right holder must be capable of being represented and it is impossible to represent a being that has no interests, and because right holders must be capable of being a beneficiary in his own person, and a being without interests is a being that is incapable of being harmed or benefited, having no good or “sake” of its own. A being without interest has no “behalf” to act in, and no “sake” to act for. 2.Vegetables :Interests are linked to desired, needs and aims, which means that they presuppose at least a rudimentary cognitive equipment.Then,vegetables cannot have interests and so they cannot have rights.F’s conclusion: vegetables, unlike animals,cannot have rights.However, there is clearly a conceptual confusion when it comes to the rights of vegetables.First, we often confuse the needs and desires that plants have for sunshine and nutrients for needs and desires similar to these of higher animals or even humans. the difference?The ethical value we ascribe to the needs of plants is purely human.Second, there is a confusion with the use of language when talking about plants.We use languages metaphorically more often than we thing when talking about plants that flourishing under someone‟s care.3.Whole species: compared to individual animals: we run into a paradox.Animal species cannot have beliefs that are associated with interests, and therefor they cannot have rights.However, the preservation of a whole species might be morally more important than the preservation of an individual Siberian tiger.Still,for Feinberg the interests of whole species are human interests.We feel an obligation to protect whole species because we feel we have an obligation to the human generation.4.Dead persons: they do and don‟t have rights since they do and don‟t have interests. T hey don‟t really have rights and interests the way living person does,but it is a moral duty of the promisee to keep their word not to defame the reputation of the promisee.5.human vegetables: they do not have interests and therefore they do not have rights.we think of them as having rights but that‟s for our sake and not for theirs.human vegetables are no longer capable of having a “ good” of their own.6.fetuses: if we think of fetuses as potential human beings, then we can meaningfully speak of them as such entities that can haverights.while fetuses and newborns do not have interests, they do not have rights.But we assume that they will acquire such traits so that they will have interests and thus rights.So, we feel justified in pr otecting the rights of the unborn, but we shouldn‟t forget that those rights are not unconditional as is oftenassumed7.Future generations which future generations are even more remotely potential than fetuses.The problem here is the fact that we are not certain of who they will be.Just like fetuses, future generations have only contingent rights because they have no present interests.it‟s like a Paradoxes of potentiality.The biggest problem with potentially: leads to a slippery slope.How to avoid the slippery slope?Introduce such criteria as casual importance and deviation from the normal course of events.As vague as these terms are they at least provide somewhat of a compass.Conclusion: we best understand the concept of right in terms of the concept of interest.Interests are defined as conscious desires, needs, hopes etc.Only autonomous humans have present interest and therefore , full-fledged rights.But there are other things, such as higher animals, dead persons fetuses that can have interests, and therefore, at least contingent rights.peter singer(utilitarianin):Singer rejects from the very start the claim that intellectual capacity has anything to do with moral equality.→If IQ were a criterion for moral equality, then there will be no equality even among humans →So, moral equality is defined in terms of the interests of every living being which are to be taken into account and treated equally with the like interests of other beings. →If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration and count it equally with the like suffering.→The important question is whether animals can suffer→The answer will give us the criterion for treating animals as morally equal to us.Suffering is intimately related to the concept of pain and pain is a mental event, a state of consciousness.→How do we know that someone is in pain then? 1st, by analogy with ourselves. 2nd, by reading the external signs of their behavior. (screaming, yelling, crying) →We can use the same two criteria applied to animals and conclude that they do suffer.→who question the s uffering of animals ground their arguments on the belief that animals are substantially different from us.How?They do not possess rule- governed language which is a pre-condition for conceptual thought, so, they do not possess intention without possessing language. →Singer's response to this view: the feeling of pain is more primitive than the use of language.The use of language to describe pain and suffering is not always the best reliable way to express it. Basic signals we use to convey pain, fear and so on are not specific to our species. So there seems to be no reason at all to believe that a creature without language cannot suffer. Human infants, as well as some adults, are unable to use language. He thinks animals have similar neurological structure to humans. If animals do suffer like humans, how far down the evolutionary scale the analogy between human and non-human animals holds?→Singe r admits that the farther away we get from humans, the less likely we are to understand whether and how much the animal suffers.→But this difficulty does not entitle us to speciesism,which seems to be the case at present. The logic of speciesism is evident is animal experimentation. Would the experimenter be willing to experiment on an orphanage baby? We can see that non-humans are just as sensitive to pain as a human is. There is not characteristic that human infants possess that higher mammals do not have to the same or a higher degree.→ We feel justified in treating animals the way we do. The speciesim attitude treats animals as pure utilities, that is, as means to our ends.Speciesm is bias of the same order as sexism and racism.Thus, we need to abolish all animal experimentation and also, become vegetarians.why Animal liberation require an altruism stronger than other altruism exhibited by us toward a fellow human Because animals are incapable of defending their rights themselves.Singer makes an additional argument about killing animals.Most people have a mixed attitude toward animals:They believe that we should not let animals suffer, while at the same time, it is Ok to kill them humanely.Singer: this attitude is unacceptable for two main reasons: First: if we combine the claims that 'Animal suffering is to be avoided' and 'There is nothing with killing animals'.It follows that we should exterminate all animal life because all animals are likely to suffer at some point in their lives. If we want to avoid this absurd conclusion, we have to admit that we place a certain value on animal life, just like we place a certain value on humanlife.Second, as long as we think that an animal should die so that a human can satisfy his her taste for meat, we are still thinking of animals as pure means to an end.Francoise Baylis Types of cloning:1.Taking a cell from a human embryo and growing it into a genetically identical embryo.2Taking out the nucleus of one cell and putting into the cell wall of the nucleus of another cell to be cloned.Purpose of cloning: 1.Non-reproductive, such as the production of pharmaceuticals from cloned transgenic animals; DNA research; research on human reproduction 2.Reproductive -producing a human being: FB'thesis: we should not fear cloning, but we should regard it as a technology aiming at improving our quality of life, making us better individuals and a better species.Two type of attitudes toward cloning The 1st attitude expresses our fear of cloning and our reaction of prohibition of the replication of individuals.The 2nd attitude and is more complex and shows a little more faith in science .According to some, the law that prohibits replication of individuals is only a temporary maneuver to preclude the misuses of cloning, and make its practice safe. The 2nd attitude also points to the fact that with the commitment, in some jurisdiction, to free enterprise and personal choice, coupled with the burgeoning support for the compassionate use of cloning technology to assist certain infertile couples, means that the technolo gy will be “for sale” and once the technology is for sale, there will be eager customers. Baylis:three mistakes 1st mistake (unnatural, playing God, human dignity, coercion by parents) we feel quite complacent about a technology which is more earth-shattering and ground breaking than we may think. We often think that cloning humans is somehow unnatural.The reasoning: while twins, triplets are natural clones, the somatic cell nuclear transfer, is not.Baylis's two responses: 1st self-transformation is inherent to human nature. We as human beings are self-transforming this is the evolution of our human species. So the problem is in our nature to master ourselves and make plans for our nature. 2nd we accept other interventions that seem to influence our 'nature'. So, why not accept cloning?to 1st mistake”cloning is “playing God.”Playing God serves to identify acts or decisions outside the realm of legitimate human activity. Human beings lack the authority to make certain decisions about the beginning or endings of life. Baylis' two responses: God expects us to live a life of high quality, so if cloning improves it, the problem is humans are created to be co-creators,and they share the divine will.In a pluralistic multi-cultural society the debate about cloning should not be a part of the debate of God as the creator of the world since not everyone believes in God. Another part1st mistake: cloning is against human dignity human dignity argument by Kantian View: once we start cloning humans, we are going to create slaves or robots, we will use humans beings solely as means (DEONTOLOGICAL). These robots will lack a proper human identity. Kantian view that persons should be treated as ends in themselves. Cloning is morally wrong because typically clones are created exclusively as a means for benefiting another. But This is flawed because there are multiple motives and reasons for procreating whether sexual or asexual, and clones would never been created exclusively as a means to another end. so Kant‟s principle is vague and open to selective interpretation as not to be very helpful. harmful consequences of the technology for society and the individuals created: These robots will lack a proper human identity. Violates the right to unique genetic identity, and clones right to open future.Baylis' tworesponses: it is a scientific fact that clones are not absolutely identical. Also, human identity is shaped by the environment as well, and not only by the genetic factors. And concerns about using humans as pure means have existed prior to the cloning debate. At last,twins do not seem to suffer from abuse or mistreatment. Because twins are not psychologically harmed by their lack of uniqueness.2nd mistake: because we fear eugenics, the cloning debate is stuck on the level of the personal, as though the technology is to address individual needs and wants.This perspective is clearly evident in discussions about the motives for pursuing human cloning.→It has been suggested that some couples may want to use cloning because it is the only way to have a child that is biologically related to each other partners such as infertile couples or gays. →Couples that are at high risks of having a child with a serious genetic disease.→One consequence of the unrelenting focus on the personal is the perception of human cloning as a bi-generational issue.Human clones are described as “spaced twins” as well the dominant image for human cloning is one of mass production with multiple images of identical phenotype which is not the traditional human tree.→Cloning is thus portrayed as a horizontal multiplication, not as a vertical, multi- generated replication. →(social goals not personal) Possible uses of human cloning to pursue public health or boarder societal goals. When cloning was first talked about there was talk about possibilities of cloning individuals with a high pain threshold or resistance to radiation (EUGENICS). Also to clone individuals skilled at certain jobs, like soldiers. →Cloning specific talent.Baylis' response: we need to broaden the scope of the argument to include the societal. Think of the bigger picture on how cloning can benefit society, rather than solely on the individual.Third mistake: we perceive cloning predominantly as a reproductive technology. And it is so much more than that..Baylis' response: cloning represents a difference in kind, not in degree, in the way that humans will continue to procreate.Assisted reproductive technology preserves the feature of the genetic make-up of both parents in offspring. Unlike current assisted reproductive technologies, human cloning goes against species norms. The ethics of transgressing species norm is not central to the discussions about human cloning, instead, autonomy, utility and safety appear to be the predominate concerns. In other words, human cloning transgresses species norms.It is certainly the case that human cloning will be provided by those who currently work in, or are affiliated with, IVF clinics, it is a serious mistake to believe that cloning is just another means of assisted reproduction. The alternative in our attitude toward cloning: The common view of cloning technology as a reproductive technology,it is a mechanism for environmental and biological improvement on a scale that we never knew before.Our genes do not determine who we are, but they provide us with possibilities and set certain boundaries. Cloning is not about getting a healthy baby, it is about getting it right, and that is correcting the mistakes of the previous generations through unique foreknowledge. An important distinction: between the goals of individual enhancement and those of species enhancement. The goal of the individual biological and environmental enhancement: to promote health, happiness and success. On a species enhancement level: improving the survival mechanisms, promoting better quality of life, and eradicating misery.Baylis: cloning should be used to promote such traits as sympathy and altruism, as well as enhancing our intellectual capacity which will promote species survival.RAANAN GILLON thesis: the arguments against cloning are either weak or indefensible.Five groups of arguments against cloning.1.'Hubris, yuk,etc.cloning is disgusting, unnatural, playing God These are highly emotionally charged arguments.The main problem is emotional reactions are highly questionable from a moral/rational point of view.They don't provide us with a moral compass to distinguish between morally right and morally wrong feelings.Only reflection and analysis can justify a moral action.If you can't articulate why you find it gross, then you should drop it. With such reflection we may find that the flag is signaling an important moral perspective that we should follow; or we may find that the flag is signaling us to respond in a morally undesirable way.Example: Doctors, especially surgeons, cut people up quite often. We would feel quite deeply that cutting someone up is rather disgusting and not to be done, yet we know through thought and reflection in our medical studies that sometimes these things need to be done in order to make sure the individual stays healthy. Brave New World:The use of science and technology to control people‟s feelings, attitudes and behavior→Main target is not science and technology but rather their misapplication by the despotic state that systematically sets out to undermine the possibility of freedom-freedom in the sense of humanity‟s ability to make thought-out choices and live by them, autonomous freedom.Cloning is unnatural. Gillon: we need to clarify first what 'natural' is for humans.1.Anything thatoc curs in nature is natural;2'natural' is what is unaffected by human intervention.3Doing something that weakens, undermines, destroys or harms our moral human nature is against human nature. 1 and 2 do not seem to pose a problem for cloning while 3 does. However, for 3 we really need to provide reasons and rational criteria as to what this human moral nature is and what human moral nature is and what undermines, harms, and destroys it. Cloning is playingGod/Hubris:Gillon: playing God means that we are arrogant and incompetent at the same time.So we need concrete examples that show such playing God tendencies, not sweeping generalizations. He believes this is an empty argument. 2autonomy and Personal Identity: producing identical human beings is immoral because the clones will lack personal identity as well as autonomy. Gillion:it is a myth that genetic identity equals personal identity. Twins are natural clones/genetically identical but nobody will think that their existence implies morally malignant consequences. Is there a difference for human dignity/autonomy between natural cloning and deliberate cloning?G:the most plausible account of human dignity is Kant's:Human dignity resides in one's ability to be autonomous, to will or choose to act according to the moral law. We should not treat individuals as a means to an ends: In creating an embryo, by whatever method, we have created a person, then of course we must treat it as a person, and thus not use it merely as a means to an end. If it is not yet a person then we may use it merely as a means to an end, as a research tool for example and destroy it after such use. This is an unresolved philosophical theological problem. Example:person decides to have a child only because they want to use its blood marrow to cure their current child. One must respect the new child and treat it as an ends to a mean and never as a means to an end of course. However he states that he can see no reason in this happening because human psychological nature would tend to lead parents to treat such children even more lovingly and respectfully than usual. Autonomy of who wish to engage in reproductive cloning Autonomous choices for themselves should be respected, unless there are very strong moral reasons against doing so.On the contrary, too much state control in such private decisions as one's reproductive choices of partners,is damaging and against human dignity.He argues against excessive state control, and in favor of a substantial zone of respect by the state for private autonomous choices where such respect does not entail harm to others 3.Harms: cloning, especially reproductive cloning, causesand is expected to cause physiological, moral psychological, and social harms on the clones themselves, the families, and society, in general.Some such harms include:Spontaneous abortions, abnormal births, resentment of the clone at having been conceived to be used as a means to an end.G:we really need to distinguish between current harms and anticipated harms, as well as between the type of harms.Currently, cloning is not safe to be used on humans.However, there is no justification for any of the anticipated harms. The alternative for children conceived via cloning is for them not to exist at all.The potential social harms (e.g cloning leads to state eugenics) sounds implausible or misdirected.We should be more concerned about social structures that permit dictatorship and other forms of state control over people rather than about new genetic techniques. The potential social harms (e.g cloning leads to state eugenics)It is misdirected, it is not cloning that might lead to social harms of racism, eugenics and so on , but rather social structures that permit dictatorships and other forms of immorally enforce d control of people‟s behavior by their ruler. What about the germ-line argument of dangers to future generations?G:it is true that genome resulting from reproductive cloning is germ-line transmissible and any mistakes that occur can be passed on to future generations.But so can any benefits, such as the elimination of genetic abnormality.G's conclusion concerning possible harms of new techniques: the principle of beneficence should always take into account the principle of non-maleficence.Doing good doesn‟t mean at absolutely all costs, do it in a way that the harm is no intentional. In other words, we shouldn‟t use the principle of non-maleficence as a beneficence moratorium.4.Benefits:there's more research d one on the benefits of non-reproductive cloning.Gillon: a few potential benefits from reproductive cloning:1.The Dolly-type cloning techniques can prevent inheritance of certain mitochondrial genetic conditions;2.Designer babies3.Parents who wish to clone a child they‟ve lost in an accident, etc.4.Parents who are carriers of a fatal recessive gene and prefer to clone a child from one of them to avoid the danger rather than use other people's genetic material 5.Justice:according to the EU cloning is contrary to the principle of human equality because it leads to eugenics and racism. Egalitarian theories of justice:→Every one should be treated equally provided they pass the Aristotelian test for theories of justice-notably, that it is equals who should be treated equally, while those who are not equal in a morally relevant sense ought not to be treated equally but treated unequally in proportion to the morally relevant inequality. →Thus cloning does not treat everyone as equal if it is not done for everyone, but that is not unjust; for not everyone needs cloning and not everyone wants cloning→There is no reason to believe that cloning is or entails either of these morally unacceptable phenomena. G:the only plausible argument against cloning comes from the position of distributive justice.We shouldn't use public funding for cloning since currently the harms are greater than the benefits but nothing prevents us from using private funding. →It does not result in a permanent ban on provision of state funding, should the anticipated benefits become substantially greater! Conclusion:t he arguments from permanent ban of cloning fail; most arguments from temporary ban of cloning fail too. However, Gillon accepts four arguments in favor of temporary ban of cloning:1.It is not safe enough to be used on humans.2.The current benefits are insufficient to outweigh the harms (utilitarian)3.Cloning should have low priority for public funding.4.Respect for autonomy in a democratic society requires an adequate social debate where the public can make informed and well-reflected ins tead of frantic and emotional decisions.→He thinks we should looks more positively at our brave new world of genetics. We should protect ourselves against the depredations of those who would unjustifiably control us and realize that the potential problems lie less in cloning and genetics and more in politics and political philosophy-and of course in their and our underlying ethics.Katrien Devolder:Discarded-Created Distinction is a compromise position; it claims that: the use and derivation of stem cells from spare IVF embryos is justified, while the creation of research embryos is not. Devolder:argues against this position.the DCD position is very weak.Main reason for weakness: inconsistency between the 'revealed' of its defenders and the professed beliefs. She thinks once IVF is accepted as a morally legitimate procedure, the creation of research embryos must be accepted as well.The defenders the DCD position often quote such principles as:The right to freedom of research; The principle of progress in science;The principles of beneficence and non-maleficence;The principle of proportionality; The principle of subsidiarity;Devolder: none of those principles, however, justifies the DCD position, they only express why one may want ESCR to continue and why one supports the use and derivation of stem cells from spare embryos, but it does not follow from the principles why one opposes the creation of research embryos. 6 arguments against the creation of research methods which Devolder refuses them all:The main complaint against the creation of research embryos: their instrumentalization. When we create an embryo solely for purposes of research, we are treating it, and respectively, human life, only as a means to an end.In other words, Kant's principle of autonomy and human dignity is violated.Devolder:when we spare IVF embryos for research, our goal is to alleviate suffering and increase well being.Why is our goal interpreted as different when we create research embryos?The DCD defenders claim that by creating research embryos, we get involved in a distinct kind of explosive attitude which is not commensurate with the moral status of the embryos.But what is this special exploitative attitude and what is the moral status of the embryos? 1. Instrumentalization of the Embryo Principle objection of advocates of DCD to the creation of research embryos is that through this act the embryo is not treated with the appropriate respect such a form of human life is entitled to, because it is used merely as a means to an end. Devolder: If defenders of DCD do not consider the embryo as a person and accept the creation and sacrifice embryos to help infertile people and their use for research, should they not also accept the creation and sacrifice of embryos to help cure ill and injured people? In both cases, embryos are created as a means to alleviate human suffering and increase human well-being. The argument of instrumentalization alone does not suffice to justify DCD. It is not a logical consequence that one opposes the creation of research embryos. One can agree that the embryo is instrumented in an IVF treatment or in embryo research without disapproving of this.2. Creation of research embryos is not commensurate with the moral status of embryos:Which moral status defenders of DCD accord to the human embryo. The fact that they accept …destructive‟ embryo research shows that they do not consider the embryo as a person and even do not accord a moral status to it close to that of aperson.According to this view, even though the embryo is not a person, it has an intrinsic value because it possess human dignity.Defenders of DCD apparently think that the fact the embryos possess human dignity does not imply that we have to protect them under all circumstances. After all, they accept the creation and sacrifice of spare IVF embryos. The mere reference to human dignity cannot justify DCD. Then the question is: will the creation of research embryos weaken our communal respect for human life? Devolder: nothing suggests that this is or will be the case, so with regards to the intrinsic value of human embryos, there is no moral difference between spare and research embryos.this defend DCD and believe the embryo has instinct value because it is a potential human being, a potential person. Parental object:Whatever the human emotions and opinions in relation to the embryo or fetus may be, as soon as it becomes a question of the procreation project, the embryo is experienced as …the expected child‟ from the moment a woman knows she is pregnant, in ca se of IVF, the embryo is created in vitriol. Devolder: but according to this view, the value of the embryo is determined according to the parental object: if the embryo is to be implanted, then its value is great, if its fate is to be a 'spare' then its value significantly decreases.Then, the parental project outweighs the value of the embryo itself.3. Intention distinction:The use of spare IVF embryos for stem cell research is justified on the grounds of the principle of double effect.According to this principle, thereal intention for creating an embryo is to implant it, but we have foresight that there will be some non-intended side effect such as the destruction of the spare embryos. Dev: according to the double effect, it is the creation of spare embryos that is non-intended side-effect, not the research on embryos, or the destruction of embryos.defenders of DCD justify the use of spare embryos for research? The basis on which defenders of DCD justify research on spare embryos is a consequentialist argument, namely that the respect we have with regard to the human embryo as a potential person has to be balanced against other values and needs, namely the development of therapies.Devolder: what becomes very clear is that you can't really separate human intention from the value of the human embryo.4. The creation of research embryos entails a different kind of exploitative attitude:The 'different kind of exploitative attitude' comes from the fact that at least spare IVF embryo has had a chance of becoming a person, while research embryos have never had that chance. In their opinion, an embryo created for research is clearly being used merely as a means to an end, because it has no prospect of implantation, whereas at the time of creation the spare embryo has a prospect of implantation, even if, once not selected for implantation, it would have to be destroyed.Devolder: to test if this reasoning is good enough to justify the DCD position, consider the following thought experiment:Suppose that we decide to donate the same percentage of randomly selected research embryos to IVF clinics as IVF clinics donate to research centers. Making a random selection of the same percentage of spare embryos that become a human from the research embryos and donate them to infert ile couples who need a donor embryo. The percentage of …research embryos‟ that become a human would then be the same as that of the …spare embryos‟ that do so. Consequently, they would have had the same chance of becoming a person. What argument could a defender of DCD put forth against this practice? Devolder: to be sure, not a strong one. It is not about the autonomy of the embryo it‟s about the percentage of the embryos that coul d possibly have the chance to be donated. After all, every embryo has had a chance of becoming a person and thus was treated as an end in itself. 5. We can instrumentalize embryos only for reproduction. Defenders of DCD is that in the case of embryo experimentation for the improvement of, for example, culture conditions of other I VF procedures, embryos are instrumentalized for reproductive purposes, and this is justified because it is the embryo‟s …function‟ to be used for reproduction. Devolder: This does not take into account what is in the interest of the embryo. There is a lot of non-reproductive use of embryos that surrounds the reproductive use, eg. the creation of spare embryos to protect women against the risks of hormone treatments, to gain more efficiency in freezing procedures, 6. Harm/omit benefit Embryos used in IVF procedures prevent harm to actual infertile couples while in the case of research embryos, they benefit unidentified population. Furthermore, infertile couples will be made worse off than they would otherwise be,while sick people will not be harmed by not engaging in stem cell research The underlying principle: the principle of non-maleficence (pluralistic deontology) is stronger than the principle of beneficence.Devolder: two main issues with this position:1.We forget that infertile people do benefit from fertility treatments (if we banned IVF, which the defenders of DCD do not want, we will not be harming the infertile couple we will be simply omitting to benefit them) ; it is not a lethal condition. 2. From here, one has to argue that benefitting achild-wishing person is better than benefitting a sick person which is absurd.What is a more defensible position for embryonic stem cell research?Defenders of DCD believe that an embryo merits special respect because of its intrinsic value, but that its potential to become a person can be weighed up against other。
《英文保护动物》课件
Purpose and background
To raise awareness of the importance of animal protection and the need for conservation efforts
To discuss the current situation and challenges facing animal protection in England
Born Free Foundation
An international wildlife charge working through the world to stop individual animal buffering and protect threatened specifications in the wild
Australia
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is the main animal protection law in Australia It exhibits acts of cruelty and single rewards animals and allows for the inspection of animal promises
National Animal Protection Associations
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA): The oldest and largest animal welfare organization in the UK, providing rescue, care, and protection for animals in need
ANIMAL RIGHTS 动物权利
.Vivisection
• .Vivisection is the practice of animal experimentation. This can include administering drugs, infecting with diseases, poisoning for toxicity testing, brain damaging, maiming, blinding, and other painful and invasive procedures. It can include protocols that cause severe suffering, such as long-term social isolation, full-body restraint, electric shocks, withholding of food and water, or repeatedly breeding and separating infants from mothers.
Mens rea
• .Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.
动物福利与动物权利PPT课件
1 Animal Welfare
但是我们在努力！
全世界都在为此做出努力，我们有理由相信，动物们的未来是光明的。 它们不是低我们一等的生物，它们也是地球的主人，是我们的朋友，更是我们的 亲人，能和他们和这些美丽的生命一起在这个星球上生存下去，是我们的荣幸， 这也是大自然给我们最好的馈赠！
2
动物权利 Animal Rights
2 Animal Rights
2013年12月1 日，西班牙 巴塞 罗那，动物 权利保护者 赤裸身 体并往身上 涂抹血液， 抗议服 装行业使用 动物皮毛为 原料。
2 Animal Rights
2009年4月23日，动物权利活动成员在加拿大驻巴塞罗那领事馆前举行抗议， 谴责加拿大在猎杀海豹问题上不作为。加拿大每年四月开始猎杀海豹，整个 季节会有338000只海豹遭猎杀。
但是我们在努力！
现状是残酷的，依靠法律武器来保护动物作为一项最基本且最有力量的措施刻不 容缓。 我们正在切将持续为此做出努力！
英国
英国有关动物保护的法律有10多个，如1869年的鸟类保护法、1911年的动物保护 法，野生动植物及乡村法、宠物法、斗鸡法、动物麻醉保护法、动物遗弃法案、 动物寄宿法案、兽医法……不仅面面俱到，而且不断修订。法律不仅对残忍地虐 待动物的人判处刑罚，也不允许主人未尽到责任而造成动物额外的痛苦——构成 “允许残忍”，也要被判监禁。甚至对饲养以供食用的动物，法律还规定要由专 职人员实行“无痛感的”宰杀。
享受不受饥渴的自由，保证提供动物保持良好健康和精力所需要的食物和饮水
享有生活舒适的自由，提供适当的房舍或栖息场所，让动物能够得到舒适的睡眠 和休息
享有不受痛苦、伤害和疾病的自由，保证动物不受额外的疼痛，预防疾病并对患 病动物进行及时的治疗
动物权animals and their rights
Animal rightsThere is much disagreement as to whether non-human animals have rights, and what is meant by animal rights.There is much less disagreement about the consequences of accepting that animals have rights.The consequences of animal rightsAnimal rights teach us that certain things are wrong as a matter of principle, that there are some things that it is morally wrong to do to animals.Human beings must not do those things, no matter what the cost to humanity of not doing them.Human beings must not do those things, even if they do them in a humane way.For example: if animals have a right not to be bred and killed for food then animals must not be bred and killed for food.It makes no difference if the animals are given 5-star treatment throughout their lives and then killed humanely without any fear or pain - it's just plain wrong in principle, and nothing can make it right.Accepting the doctrine of animal rights means:•No experiments on animals•No breeding and killing animals for food or clothes or medicine•No use of animals for hard labour•No selective breeding for any reason other than the benefit of the animal•No hunting•No zoos or use of animals in entertainmentTop The case for animal rightsPhilosophers have usually avoided arguing that all non-human animals have rights because:•the consequences are so limiting for humanity•it would give rights to creatures that are so simple that the idea of them having rights seems to defy common senseThe second problem is dealt with by not arguing that all animals have rights, but only that 'higher' animals have rights.One leading author restricts right to mentally normal mammals at least one year old (called 'adult mammals' from now on).The case for animal rightsThe case for animal rights is usually derived from the case for human rights.The argument (grossly oversimplified) goes like this:•Human animals have rights•There is no morally relevant difference between human animals and adult mammals•Therefore adult mammals must have rights tooHuman beings and adult mammals have rights because they are both'subjects-of-a-life'.This means that:•They have similar levels of biological complexity•They are conscious and aware that they exist•They know what is happening to them•They prefer some things and dislike others•They make conscious choices•They live in such a way as to give themselves the best quality of life•They plan their lives to some extent•The quality and length of their life matters to themIf a being is the subject-of-a-life then it can be said to have 'inherent value'.All beings with inherent value are equally valuable and entitled to the same rights.Their inherent value doesn't depend on how useful they are to the world, and it doesn't diminish if they are a burden to others.Thus adult mammals have rights in just the same way, for the same reasons, and to the same extent that human beings have rights.TopThe case against animal rightsA number of arguments are put forward against the idea that animals have rights.•Animals don't think•Animals are not really conscious•Animals were put on earth to serve human beings•Animals don't have souls•Animals don't behave morally•Animals are not members of the 'moral community'•Animals lack the capacity for free moral judgment•Animals don't thinkSt Thomas Aquinas taught that animals acted purely on instinct while human beings engaged in rational thought.This distinction provided the frontier between human beings and animals, and was regarded as a suitable criterion for assessing a being's moral status.Animals are not really consciousThe French philosopher Rene Descartes, and many others, taught that animals were no more than complicated biological robots.This meant that animals were not the sort of thing that was entitled to have any rights - or indeed any moral consideration at all.Animals were put on earth to serve human beingsThis view comes originally from the Bible, but probably reflects a basic human attitude towards other species.Christian theologians developed this idea - St Augustine taught that "by a most just ordinance of the Creator, both their [animals'] life and their death are subject to our use."St Thomas Aquinas taught that the universe was constructed as a hierarchy in which beings at a lower level were there to serve those above them.As human beings were above animals in this hierarchy they were entitled to use animals in any way they wanted.However, as C.S. Lewis pointed out:Animals don't have soulsChristian theologians used to teach that only beings with souls deserved ethical consideration.Animals did not have souls and therefore did not have any moral rights.This argument is no longer regarded as useful, because the idea of the soul is very controversial and unclear, even among religious people. Furthermore it is not possible to establish the existence of the soul (human or animal) in a valid experimental way.This also makes it difficult to argue, as some theologians have done, that animals should have rights because they do have souls.Top Animals aren't 'moral'Some of the arguments against animal rights centre on whether animals behave morally.Rights are unique to human beings•rights only have meaning within a moral community•only human beings live in a moral community•adult mammals don't understand or practice living according to a moral code•the differences in the way human beings and adult mammals experience the world are morally relevant•therefore rights is a uniquely human concept and only applies to human beings Animals don't behave morallySome argue that since animals don't behave in a moral way they don't deserve moral treatment from other beings.Animals, it's argued, usually behave selfishly, and look after their own interests, while human beings will often help other people, even if doing so is to their own disadvantage.Not all scientists agree: Jane Goodall, an expert on chimpanzees has reported that they sometimes show truly altruistic behaviour.Animals don't have rights against other animalsAnother reason for thinking that animals don't behave morally is that even the most enthusiastic supporters of animal rights only argue that animals have rights against human beings, not against other animals.For example, as Mary Warnock put it:Why this might be relevant to the question of whether animals should have rights becomes clearer if you rephrase it in terms of duties or obligations instead of rights and ask - why should human beings have obligations towards animals, if animals don't have obligations to other animals or to human beings?Top Moral communityThis argument states that animals are not members of the 'moral community'.• A moral community is• a group of beings who live in relationship with each other and use and understand moral concepts and rules•the members of this community can respect each other as moral persons •the members of this community respect each other's autonomy•human beings do display these characteristics and are therefore members of the 'moral community'•animals do not display these characteristics and are therefore not members of the 'moral community'•most people would agree with this: after all we don't regard a dog as having done something morally wrong when it bites someone - if the dog is put to death because of the bite, that is to protect people, not to punish the dog•only members of a 'moral community' can have rights, therefore animals don't have rights•members of the 'moral community' are more 'valuable' than beings that are not members of the moral community•it is not wrong for valuable beings to 'use' less valuable beings•therefore it is not wrong for human beings to use animalsAnimals lack the capacity for free moral judgements•If an individual lacks the capacity for free moral judgment, then they do not have moral rights.•All non-human animals lack the capacity for free moral judgment.•Therefore, non-human animals do not have moral rights.Top Fundamental rightsAnimal and human rights boil down to one fundamental right: the right to be treated with respect as an individual with inherent value.Philosophers have a traditional way of expressing this:From this fundamental right come other rights.Particular species only get relevant and useful rights - so animals don't get all the rights that human beings get. For example: animals don't want or get the right to vote.When rights conflictSometimes a particular situation results in a conflict of rights.Two methods can be used to determine the best course of action when there is no alternative to violating the rights of some individual or group:•The Miniride Principle: Where similar harms are involved, override the fewest individuals' rights.•The Worse-off Principle: Where dissimilar harms are involved, avoid harming the worse-off individual.Harm is defined as the reduction of the capacity to have and fulfil desires.This definition of harm benefits people over animals because human beings have far more desires that they want to satisfy than do non-human animals.This resolves many of the traditional problems of humans versus animals in favour of humanity, because the human being under consideration would suffer far more harm than the non-human animal.But be careful: this method of choosing alternative courses of action is not utilitarian, it doesn't necessarily lead to choosing the course of action that produces the greatest overall happiness.Top The problem of 'marginal people'The phrase 'marginal people' or 'marginal human beings' is unpleasant. We use it here only because if you read the literature of animal rights you will encounter it often, and it's important to know what it means. We do not intend to denigrate the status or worth of any human being by using it here...The problem with the line of thought in the section above that it takes rights away from many human beings as well as from non-human animals.This is because some human beings (babies, senile people, people with some severe mental defects and people in a coma) don't have the capacity for free moral judgement either, and by this argument they wouldn't have any rights.Some philosophers are prepared to argue that in fact such 'marginal human beings' don't have rights, but most people find that conclusion repellent.The argument can be rescued by rewriting it like this:•If an individual is a member of a species that lacks the capacity for free moral judgment, then he or she does not have moral rights.•All non-human animal species lack the capacity for free moral judgment.•Therefore, non-human animals do not have moral rights.But this is not an argument; it's a statement that human beings have rights andnon-human animals don't, which is pure speciesism, and hardly persuasive.It's also vulnerable to the (probably unlikely) arrival of a species of extra-terrestrial creatures who demonstrate the capacity for free moral judgement.。
小学英语完整---动物ppt课件
完整版课件
24
penguin 企鹅
完整版课件
25
shark 鲨鱼
完整版课件
26
dolphin 海豚
完整版课件
27
whale 鲸鱼
完整版课件
28
此课件下载可自行编辑修改，供参考！ 感谢您的支持，我们努力做得更好！
完整版课件
9
zebra 斑马
完整版课件
10
deer 鹿
完整版课件
11
peacock 孔雀
完整版课件
12
crane 鹤
完整版课件
13
eagle
老鹰
完整版课件
14
parrot 鹦鹉
完整版课件
15
gold fish 金鱼
完整版课件
16
Turtle 乌龟
完整版课件
17
Listen and complete.
完整版课件
20
Review the words.
dtiegeeprreaecaogcpclkraeanndeazegrbaoerballdebfpiitshhant lion parrot
完整版课件
21
snail 蜗牛
完整版课件
22
toad 蟾蜍
完整版课件
23
the sea world 海底世界
1.My father is watching the _p_an_d_a__.
2.There are a lot of _p_e_o_p_le_ at the _z_o_o__on children’s day.
3.I am taking a picture with a _p_e_n_g_u_i_n_.
保护动物英语演讲PPT
03
The Illegal trade in ivory is driving the elephant population towards extraction, as teachers kill elements for their tutors
Illegal hunting and trading
ห้องสมุดไป่ตู้
Legal protection
Establish nature reserves and protect the habitats of wild animals.
Establish nature reserves in wildlife habitats, strengthen the protection of the natural environment, prevent human activities from damaging the living environment of wildlife, and ensure that animals can reproduce and thrive in a relatively safe environment.
Climate change
04
Measures to protect animals
CHAPTER
Develop strict animal protection laws to ensure the protection of animal rights.
Countries should establish and improve animal protection laws, clearly prohibit the abuse and illegal trade of animals, and crack down on illegal activities to provide legal protection for animals.
新视野大学英语读写教程-第三版-Book 2 Unit 8 Human rights Vs. animal rights教案-讲稿
Book 2 Unit 8 Human rights Vs. animal rightsUnit 8 Text AAnimals or children? –A scientist’s choice动物还是孩子？一个科学家的选择(1st ---2nd class-hour)I. Pre-reading Activities:1.1 Warm-up questions (15 M)1. Look at the picture and talk about what are the advantages and disadvantages of each way of teachingand learning.2. ASK students to interview a few classmates about what kind of teaching and leaning style they preferand discuss their findings in groups.3. ASK students to debate whether a university should provide Internet access anywhere, anytime.1.2 Words & Expressions checkup (30M)Check if the students have mastered the new words, which are required to be previewed before class.1.2.1 New Words1. transplant: vt.1) 移植(器官、皮肤等）Doctors hope to transplant a donated human heart into the patient within the next few days. 医生们希望在未来几天内能给这位病人移植一颗捐献来的人类心脏。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
author’s suggestion
• To assist them, the author offers a modest proposal, and suggests that we adopt a legal release form, readily available to all patients • This form should resolve the issue once and for all. And this ― Animal Research Advance Directive‖ would like this: You oppose the doctors to do animal experiment, while you ask them to check all that apply to care for me, and request
introduce the topic about this passage
• Part two:paragraph two
• Because of the abstention(弃权）of the opposition,the author mentioned his proposal-abstain from the benefits of animal research.
The current situations
• Animal research often uses laboratory rats, frogs, rabbits, monkeys to do researches • Almost every country has animal researches • Many school’s medical majors need to do animal researches to learn medical knowledge • Many medical laboratories need to do animal researches to test new medicines
The final question is , ―Do you think animals also have the same rights as human beings‖, most persons said that they hadn’t noticed it , and refused to answer it, though some said, ―Yes‖. From life and textbook, the author may appeal us to paying more attention on animal rights, and suggests that we should make a right relationship between animals and human beings ourseves.
detail
You don’t perform on me a coronary bypass operation, or fix any heart defect my child may be born with‖, ―You treat my child for any disease she may develop, but do not give her a vaccine that was tried first on a blameless animal‖, ―You avoid offering any suggestions regarding my diet and habits, when that information was derived from animal studies‖, ―Should I develop a malignancy, you don’t give me chemotherapy, as those drugs were administered first to animals‖.
author'position
• Part three:paragraph three to eleven
• The author expressed his proposal carefully including a form with four items in it.
main idea
• This text is a message about animal rights, in which the author gives a modest proposal to animal research
In my opinion
• • • • • Use the animal to do researches moderately Use succedaneum where possible Treat the animals kindly Reduce the pain to the animals Do enough survys before doing researches
Some people think
• Animals rights: rights to survive, individual liberty • Too cruel for animals • Against humanitarianism(人道主义)
Other people think
• • • • Need animal researches to test new medicines Save many people’s lives A help of the development of medical science Euthanasia(安乐死)
author’s opinion
• In author’s opinion, the animal rights question can be answered by exactly that tactic: the opposition’s abstention that isn’t from debate and from performing research those who are not researchers is not meaningful. And the author proposes that the protesters— and every citizen they can enlist– abstain from the benefits of animal research.
• Question
• Should we take it for granted that animals are committed to medical research which kills thousand of them?
•Animal rights groups
•Extreme animal rights groups
It’s just like that you want the horse to run faster while you don’t let the horse eat grass.
Reflection:
According to our survey, we find that almost no one to pay attention to the animal rights. When they were asked whether they like animals ,almost everyone said,―Yes‖. For the question,― Whom do you regard animals that you adopt as, a partner, a good listener when you’re sad or upset, a ―thing‖ that you can give vent to your anger on it, or a fashion that’s just for fun‖, everyone has their own answers. And, among them, many people thought it a partner and good listener, while some people regarded it as a fashion, and few persons often gave vent to their anger on it.
Animal Rights vs.Animal Research:a Modest Proposal
• Part one:paragraph one
• It shows the contradiction between animal researchers and the opponents whether we should use animal in the research or not
1.refuse a cornonary（冠状） bypass operation and fix any heart defect their child may be born with. 2.refuse th give child a vaccine（疫苗） that was tried first on animal. a 3.refuse to accept the suggestion wห้องสมุดไป่ตู้ich was derived from animal studies. 4.refuse to get a chemotherapy（化学治疗） when developed a malignancy（恶性肿瘤） or suegical treatment if the drug were administered first to animal.