In class yesterday, Kim made an excellent point in the case of animal ethics, something to the effect of we wouldn't use humans for experiments, why use animals? (Please correct me if I am wrong, Kim, if you read this.) Dr. Johnson has also used the point many times of saving your own daughter over the neighbor's many times to prove a point, although there have been some variations as of late (your daughter having a hang nail versus the neighbor's daughter drowning). But even in the readings I have noticed a pattern.
Even in our readings, many of the arguments for and against animal ethics have been brought to the human level, the latest being in Brody's piece. So while this post is not very long, it brings up an interesting question: Why is it that the most compelling arguments on either side of animal ethics are often brought to the human level?
No comments:
Post a Comment