AGENDA
- Preview: next week presentations on Monday and Friday
- Reminder: no class on Nov. 21
- After Thanksgiving: animal law, Shelby Bobosky, Esq.
How should animal research be regulated?
Baruch Brody's assumptions:
- Animal research is beneficial to humans (Engel says no)
- Animals matter (Carruthers and Descartes say no)
- Humans should take some sort of priority (Regan and Singer say no)
ANSWER 1: LEXICAL PRIORITY, i.e. HUMANS FIRST
- Lexical priority is like words in a dictionary--all the A words come before any of the B words
- Anything on the Human Interests list comes before anything on the Animal Interests List
- After satisfying anything on the A list we SHOULD satisfy interests on the B list
ANSWER 2: BALANCING PLUS DISCOUNTING
DISCOUNTING. When considering human and animal interests, we should discount the animal interests. By what amount?
BALANCING. Harm to animals must be balanced by human benefit.
 |
| HARM TO ANIMALS BALANCED BY BENEFIT TO HUMANS |
 |
| HARM TO ANIMALS NOT BALANCED BY BENEFIT TO HUMANS |
Balance problems
- cosmetic procedures
- cosmetic drugs and products
- contact lenses?
- baldness treatments
- new headache medication
AWA doesn't demand balance but European laws do
- Balancing PLUS discounting could change the outcome in the Botox case; depends on the discount rate
- It will change SOME research from unjustified to justified
Brody's Defense of Discounting
- We are not generally committed to Peter Singer's principle of equality, i.e. equal interests should be given equal consideration. (p. 61)
- We have "special obligations to ourselves, our family members, our friends, our fellow citizens, etc." (p. 61)
- "we have a morally permissible prerogative to pay special attention to our own interests in the fulfillment of some of our central projects." (p. 61)
Objection
- David DeGrazia & Peter Singer: If discounting non-family/friends are OK, we could discount the interests of other genders, other races. But no, that's sexism and racism.
Brody's reply
