Why the benefits argument begs the question

Why the benefits - Why the benefits argument begs the question Vivisection on non-humans benefits humans If we benefit from using animals then they

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Why the benefits argument begs the question- Vivisection on non-humans benefits humans- If we benefit from using animals, then they don’t have a right to life- So, Vivisection is justified o But what’s really at issue? Do animals have any rights? The Children of Willowbrook- The results of the experiment were instrumental in results about Hepatitis A and B- Everyone agrees that many people have benefited from this knowledge- Nonetheless, what he did was wrong Why Humans Have Rights 1. People are Unique 2. People engage in higher mental functions (math, poetry) 3. They understand their morality and make moral choices 4. Higher mental functions and understanding morality and making moral choices entails moral rights a. Therefore, Humans have moral rights i. Problem: But, not every person engages in higher mental functions. So if the above is correct, he did not do anything wrong to the children of Willowbrook, Discussion on whether or not we are given or born with rights with the teacher ending the...
View Full Document

This essay was uploaded on 04/07/2008 for the course PHI 2630 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at FSU.

Page1 / 2

Why the benefits - Why the benefits argument begs the question Vivisection on non-humans benefits humans If we benefit from using animals then they

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online