Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2026
09:49
Antigen Specific In Vivo Killing Assay using CFSE Labeled Target Cells
Published on: November 9, 2010
Killing for knowledge
1Department of English & General and Comparative Literature, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. tzachizamir@mscc.huji.ac.il
Journal of Applied Philosophy
|May 11, 2006
Summary
This study critically examines justifications for animal experimentation, finding them ethically insufficient. It explores arguments for continuing experiments despite moral objections, considering animal liberation perspectives.
Area of Science:
- Animal Ethics
- Philosophy of Science
- Bioethics
Background:
- Ethical debates surrounding animal experimentation are ongoing.
- Existing justifications for animal use in research are frequently challenged.
- The autonomy of animal experimentation ethics is often conflated with broader animal welfare concerns.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critically analyze and refute common justifications for animal experimentation.
- To explore arguments for the continuation of animal experimentation, even if deemed immoral.
- To assess the impact of animal liberationist strategies on the moral conclusions regarding animal experimentation.
Main Methods:
- Philosophical analysis of ethical arguments.
- Delineation of the ethical scope of animal experimentation.
- Examination of justifications for and against animal experimentation.
Main Results:
- The four common justifications for animal experimentation are found to be ethically inadequate.
- Arguments for continuing animal experimentation, irrespective of moral status, are presented.
- Strategic considerations from animal liberationism are shown to modify moral conclusions.
Conclusions:
- The ethical justifications for animal experimentation are systematically dismantled.
- The moral permissibility of animal experimentation remains a contentious issue, with pragmatic arguments for continuation.
- Animal liberationist viewpoints offer a framework for re-evaluating the ethical landscape of animal experimentation.
Related Concept Videos
01:56Ethics in Research
Today, scientists agree that good research is ethical in nature and is guided by a basic respect for human dignity and safety. However, this has not always been the case. Modern researchers must demonstrate that the research they perform is ethically sound.
03:20The Stanford Prison Experiment
The famous and controversial Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by social psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues at Stanford University, demonstrated the power of social roles, social norms, and scripts.
01:08Obedience
According to obedience research, we may harm others under the forceful pressures of an authority figure (Milgram, 1974). How about if the inappropriate orders were delivered with less force? The increasing interdependence between nurses and physicians compelled Hofling and his colleagues to explore nurses’ reactions to a potentially harmful medical request made by the perceived authority figure, the doctor (Hofling, Brotzman, Dalrymple, Graves, & Pierce, 1966). In this situation, obedience...
02:20Milgram's Obedience to Authority
Obedience to authority is classically demonstrated in a more famous series of social psychology experiments performed by Stanley Milgram. He was a social psychology professor at Yale who was influenced by the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi war criminal. Eichmann’s defense for the atrocities he committed was that he was “just following orders.”
01:47Aggression
Humans engage in aggression when they seek to cause harm or pain to another person. Aggression takes two forms depending on one’s motives: hostile or instrumental. Hostile aggression is motivated by feelings of anger with intent to cause pain; a fight in a bar with a stranger is an example of hostile aggression. In contrast, instrumental aggression is motivated by achieving a goal and does not necessarily involve intent to cause pain (Berkowitz, 1993); a contract killer who murders for hire...
01:19Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development
Kohlberg's theory of moral development uses the Heinz dilemma — a thought experiment in which a man, Heinz, must decide whether to steal an unaffordable drug to save his dying wife — to illustrate the evolution of moral reasoning. This framework, divided into three levels with two stages, highlights how individuals' understanding of right and wrong becomes increasingly complex.
Pre-Conventional Level
At the pre-conventional level, morality is primarily driven by personal consequences. In Stage...
Pre-Conventional Level
At the pre-conventional level, morality is primarily driven by personal consequences. In Stage...