l rights since the late 1980s, however, do represent changes (Holden 17 19; Zak 69 74). Both sides in the controversy demand moderation in the behavior of the parties in the opposing camp, and each side demands new laws to deal with either the protection of animals, or the protection of those who use (or abuse) animals (Alperson 26 30; Freeman and Ward S1 S2; Jasny 1755; Ritvo 54 61; Zak 69 74).
The Methodological Approach of This Examination of the Issue
The use of animals in medical and other scientific experimentation is justified within the context of utilitarian philosophy and is frequently codified in law. The thesis of this research is that utilitarian philosophy does not provide an adequate justification for the use of non human animals in the conduct of medical and other scientific experimentation. Within this methodological framework, the treatment of animals within the structure of a utilitarian philosophy is assessed. This assessment includes the examination of (1) utilitarian philosophy and its relation to law, and (2) the concept of animal rights.
Utilitarian Philosophy and the Relationship of That Philosophy to Law
In quite general terms, utilitarian philosophy evaluates the acceptability of actions in the context of their outcomes. Thus, an evaluation of an outcome a consequence as good would confer an evaluation of acceptability on an action, and vice versa. This approach is employed in the justification of medical and other scientific experimentation involving animals.
Almost all actions, however, result in both good and bad outcomes, a phenomenon that tends to complicate utilitarian evaluations. Utilitarian philosophy attempts to solve this dilemma through the criterion of the greatest good to the greatest number (Brunton 289 303). This approach tends to attempt to reduce a philosophical question to a type of accounting exercise. In just such a way, the use of nuclear weapons by the Unite...