 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Full-Text PDF
XML 1529 Views
DOI:10.17265/2159-5313/2021.01.002
The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA
Readers of The New England Journal of Medicine may be excused for thinking that there is a good case for, and no good case against, the use of animals in biomedical research. In October 1986, philosopher Carl Cohen, who is known for his principled positions on affirmative action and other issues, published an article in that journal in which he claimed that there are (only) two kinds of argument against the use of animals in biomedical research. After examining both arguments, Cohen concluded that they “deserve definitive dismissal.” In this article, I show that both of Cohen’s attempted refutations fail. Not only has he not laid a glove on the arguments in question; his discussion betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the arguments that he so cavalierly dismisses. Readers of Cohen’s article owe it to themselves—and, more importantly, to the animals whose use as research subjects Cohen defends—to take another look at the issue.
Carl Cohen (1931-), animals, animal rights, animal liberation, medicine, science, biology, biomedical research, experimentation, vivisection, sentience, rights, interests
Keith Burgess-Jackson. (2021). Dissecting Cohen. Philosophy Study, January 2021, Vol. 11, No. 1, 11-36.
Blackburn, S. (2008). The Oxford dictionary of philosophy. 2nd ed. rev. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, C. (1986). The case for the use of animals in biomedical research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 315(14), 865-870.https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=moreaexp (last visited 24 January 2021)
Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2011).Introduction to logic. 14th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Coppola, D. (2020). Share of consumers who consider themselves vegan or vegetarian in the United States as of June 2018, by age group. Statista (30 November). https://www.statista.com/statistics/738851/vegan-vegetarian-consumers-us/ (last visited 24 January 2021)
Engel, M., Jr. (2016). The commonsense case for ethical vegetarianism. Between the Species, 19(1),2-31.https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/vol19/iss1/1/ (last visited 24 January 2021)
Feinberg, J. (1974). The rights of animals and unborn generations. In W. T. Blackstone (Ed.),Philosophy &environmental crisis. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Feinberg, J. (1978). Human duties and animal rights. In R. K. Morris & M. W. Fox (Eds.),On the fifth day: Animal rights &human ethics. Washington, DC: Acropolis Books.
Garner, B. A. (2016).Garner’s modern English usage. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hoff, C. (1980). Immoral and moral uses of animals. The New England Journal of Medicine, 302(2),115-118.https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198001103020212 (last visited 24 January 2021)
Hrynowski, Z. (2019). What percentage of Americans are vegetarian? Gallup (27 September).https://news.gallup.com/poll/267074/percentage-americans-vegetarian.aspx (last visited 24 January 2021)
Jamieson, D. (1983). Killing persons and other beings. In H. B. Miller & W. H. Williams (Eds.),Ethics and animals. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press.
Martin, R. M. (2002).The philosopher’s dictionary. 3rd ed. Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press.
Mill, J. S. (1957).Utilitarianism. Edited by Oskar Piest. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing. First published in 1861.
Miller, H. B. (1983). Introduction: ‘Platonists’ and ‘Aristotelians’. In H. B. Miller & W. H. Williams (Eds.),Ethics and animals. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press.
National Academy of Sciences. (1988).Use of laboratory animals in biomedical and behavioral research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25032311/ (last visited 24 January 2021)
New Oxford American Dictionary. (2010). 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Regan, T. (1983).The case for animal rights.Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Rollin, B. E. (1981).Animal rights and human morality. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Singer, P. (1975).Animal liberation. New York: Avon Books.
Singer, P. (1979).Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Singer, P. (2011).Practical ethics. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smart, J. J. C. (1956). Extreme and restricted utilitarianism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 6(25),344-354.
Wenar, L. (2005). The nature of rights. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(3),223-252.