REC
Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
Barry's prep list for publication:
1) Find inflammatory quotemine, remove from context.
(ignore all other publications by author/do not actually read article)
2) Accuse author of being a "materialist darwinist" without proof
3) Sprinkle in Nazi references
4) Moderate comments carefully
My comment to Barry:
The paper you posted is a critique of the utility of the concept of "dignity" in making moral decisions. Considering the author has argued against human and even animal experimentation using other moral constructs, isn't it a bit extreme to accuse him of being a nihilist who favors nazi-style experimentation on humans?
For instance:
"According to this approach, animals possess the moral right not to be subjected to experiments that cause them pain or that end in death. Since the vast majority of animal experiments cause pain and/or end in death, the perspective concludes that most animal experimentation that takes place is morally unacceptable. However, this does not entail an absolutist stance on the issue. Animal experimentation can be justified when animal well-being and interests are respected. The interest-based approach thus demands a radical change in our current use of animals in experiments, but it does not claim that all experimental use of animals is inevitably harmful."
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q218086529404h61/fulltext.pdf
The paragraph you have chosen to illustrate what you believe to be the author's belief is removed from context. He states that instead of the weak concept of dignity, we instead use moral status, referencing:
M.A. Warren. 1997. Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
First paragraph of that reference:
"...we may not treat it just in any way we please; we are morally obliged to give weight in our deliberations to its needs, interests, or well-being."
|
