When most Americans think of animal rights and animal welfare, they think of the use of animals in biomedical research, or they think of fur seals. Animals are, however, used for many other purposes, and, depending upon one's perspective, these uses are either justified or unjustified.Hay, Cameron. "Labs Protest Animal Cutoff." Japan Times Weekly International Edition, 27 July 1992, 8. its relation to law, and (2) the concept of animal rights. Utilitarian philosophy, therefore, does not appear to be a sound basis upon which to build a dialogue between those who would use animals in the conduct of medical and other scientific experimentation and those who would prohibit such use. The building of a consensus that would lead to laws acceptable to both sides on the issue demands the application of a different philosophy. More and more often, research scientists reacting to the arguments of animal rights and animal welfare activists are sounding like small children "He's doing it; why can't I." To cite the facts that (1) veterinarians also place animals in cages, (2) pounds and shelters kills thousands of stray animals each year, and (3) animals are killed for food, as was done in an editorial in Science, is not a philosophical justification for the use of animals in medical and other scientific experimentation (Koshland 1253). It is, rather, simply a childish argument. What the argument does point out, however, is that many animal rights and animal welfare activists are scarcely on ground any firmer than that of the scientists. Most animal rights and animal welfare activists, as an example, do not refuse to (1) eat the flesh of animals, or (2) make use of drugs and medical procedures developed through the use of animals in medical and other scientific research. These inconsistencies in the behavior of animal rights and animal welfare activists do not compromise the philosophical underpinning of the position opposing the use of non human animals in med |
