06 – Whistleblower, Product Safety vs. Animal Rights

Whistleblower 70-85 * Whistleblowing is a new label generated by awareness of ethical conflicts encountered at work. They sound an alarm in the organization that threatens public interest * Whistleblowing has high stakes * Moral conflicts on several levels whether to speak out about abuses or risks or serious neglect * Things to consider? - ARGUMENTS * Is speaking out in fact in the public interest * Does speaking out, outweigh the his responsibilities against his colleagues and institution he works for * If 1 and 2 are valid, what about the fear ot the results * Can be threatened to undergo psychiatric fitness test, declared unfit, fired etc, marked as crazy * Like all dissent, whistleblowing makes public a disagreement with an authority or a majority view. * Dissent, breach of loyalty and accusation. Is there ways to find alternatives in-order not to breach these things? * You could be harming something bigger by being a whistle blower * Most important question, whether the existing avenues for change within the organization have been explored * Whistleblowing should be last alternative because of its destructive side affects, only chose when all other things are considered and rejected. * Does it infringe personal or private matters that we have no right to invade.

Animal Rights – 135-164

* 200 million animals were used for scientific purposes * in the name of improving the quality of human life * vivisection is to dissect it, to cut it and while it is alive * 3 major areas of science in which animals are routinely used * biological and medical eduction * toxicology testing for harmful affects for human beings of various chemical first tested on animals * original and applied research, including not only research into the causes and treatment of various diseases but also basic biochemical nature and behavior of living organism * First argument that we shall consider is the Cartesian Argument, named after Rene Descartes * If a practice does not cause pain, then it is morally permissible * Unlimited use of animals for scientific purposes would not cause them any pain * Therefore, the use of any animal for any scientific purpose is morally permissible * Second argument is the might makes right argument * If a practice is in the interests of the stronger, then it is morally permissible * Humans are stronger than animals * Unlimited use of animals in science would be in the interests of humans * Therefore, the use of any animal for any scientific purpose is morally permissible * Third argument, the soul argument, over comes some of these difficulties * Moral constraints only apply to beings who have souls * All humans have souls * No animals have souls * Therefore, moral constraints apply to what may be done to humans but not to what may be done to animals * Therefore, unlimited use of animals for scientific purposes is morally permissible * Freedom argument, does not seek to show directly that unlimited use of animals is permissible. Rather it seeks to show that limitations on a researcher’s freedom to use animals are wrong. Freedom TO AQUIRE KNOWLEDGE * Outside limits placed on the scientist’s right to freedom of inquiry or academic freedom are not permissible. * Any outside restriction placed on the use of animals for scientific purposes would place limits on the scientist’s right to freedom of inquiry or academic freedom * Therefore, no outside restriction on how animals may be used for scientific purposes are morally permissible * No use position may take some comfort in our critique of the Unlimited Use Position, but they cannot infer from that critique that their own position is on the side of the truth. * If an action causes pain to another being, then it is not morally permissible * The use of animals for scientific purposes causes animals pain * Therefore, no use of any animal for any scientific purpose is morally permissible * Informed consent argument allges: * If an action causes pain to another being wihout that being’s informed consent, then it is not morally permissible. * The use of animals for scientific purposes causes animals pain without their informed consent. * Therefore no use of any animal for scientific purpose is morally permissible * Harm argument * If an action ahrms another being, then it is not morally permissible * The use of animals for scientific purposes harm animals * Therefore no use of any animl for any scientific purpose is morally permissible * Innocence argument * If an action causes harm to an innocent individual, then it is not permissible, no matter what the circumstances * Animals are innocent * The use of animals for scientific purpose harm them * Therefore no use of any animal for any scientific purpose is morally permissible. * The moral agent argument * Only moral agents can be innocent * Animals are not moral agents * Therefore, animals cannot be innocent * Modified Innocence Argument * It is wrong to harm the innocent unless we have a very good reason to believe that this is the only realistic way to prevent equal harm for many other innocents * Animals are innocent * Therefore, it is not permissible to harm them unless the conditions set forth in premise 1 are satisfied * At least a great deal of the use of animals in science harmful to them fails to meet the conditions set forth in premise one * Therefore, at least a great deal of this use is wrong *