Rigid animal-rights views not useful to ethics debate

The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?

The simple, but quite unusual plan, promised much: two leading academics (Gary Francione and Robert Garner) prepared to make their respective cases with conviction and candour, followed by a lively debate between them, during which no stone need be left unturned. In prospect, then, was an opportunity for nuances to be clarified, misunderstandings dispelled and some common ground established. Bu...

Views of the Animal Experimentation Debate

Animal rights campaigners and scientists working with animals completed anonymous questionnaires in which they were asked to report, not only on their own beliefs and ideas about the animal experimentation debate, but also on those they perceived the opposing group to hold. Both groups of participants tended to have a negative and somewhat extreme view of the other. But they did have an accurat...

Animal Rights and Ecoholism Are Not Compatible

Opposing views on animal experimentation: do animals have rights?

Animals have moral standing; that is, they have properties (including the ability to feel pain) that qualify them for the protections of morality. It follows from this that humans have moral obligations toward animals, and because rights are logically correlative to obligations, animals have rights.

A physiologist's views on the animal rights/liberation movement.

Many physicians and biomedical researchers still believe that the animal rights/liberation (AR/L) movement does not pose a serious threat to biomedical science in the United States. Indeed, some cell and molecular biologists regard the animal rights/research issue as a tempest in a teapot that will not affect them because they use few or no animals. By using the so-called alternatives to animal...