nicoll&russellonanimalethics

Nicoll & Russell on Animal Ethics

Selections from this page: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/

HUMAN SUPERIORITY

The predator Homo sapiens has a set of adaptive advantages that are an

expression of the functional capacities of our greatly enlarged

cerebral cortex. These advantages include our capacity to reason, to

develop and use languages, to think creatively and in the abstract,

etc. It does not matter to what extent these higher intellectual

functions may be shared, in part, by a few other nonhuman species. The

fact that we are the only species that has all of these capacities and

we use them to create our overwhelming technology makes us superior to

any other animal on Earth. By equating a human being with a labratory

rat, you are demeaning humans.

[paraphrased from:

Sharon M. Russell and Charles S. Nicholl. "A Dissection of the

Chapter "Tools for Research" in Peter Singer's Animal

Liberation". Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology

and Medicine. February 1996, Vol.211 No.2. pp.109-138]

CRITIQUE OF ANIMAL LIBERATION

"Abstract. The book Animal Liberation by philosopher Peter

Singer, is frequently referred to as the bible of the animal

liberation/rights movement (ALARM). Thus Singer is regarded as a

major moral standard-bearer of the ALARM. Some have suggested

that his book provides "intellectual rigor" to the moral

arguments for animals' equality with humans which had previously

been based largely on emotionalism and sentimentality. We have

analyzed the contents of the chapter "Tools for Research" which

criticizes the use of animals in biomedical research as well as

for drug and for product-safety testing. In order to discredit

these practices, Singer "documents" his arguments with 138

"notes," some of which are to the same reference and others of

which contain multiple references. Of the 132 different

references, we attempted to verify the accuracy of 49 of them. Of

these, 16 (33%) were inaccurate or we could not find. In

addition, Singer mischaracterizes the cited studies in various

ways. He quotes selectively and out of context from numerous

research projects. He never mentions the objectives of these

projects, except occasionally when, in our opinion, he distorts

or trivializes them. Singer also cites supposedly damning

"evidence" published by other antivivisectionists, even though

this evidence has been refuted in the literature.

Singer supposedly embraces utilitarianism, a philosophy which

holds that the harm done by a practice should be balanced against

the gain realized from it. However, he makes virtually no attempt

to consider objectively the benefits that have been realized from

animal-based medical research, and he greatly exaggerates the

costs. To him, animal research is "all pain and no gain".

We believe that Singer's moral arguments for animal equality are

not convincing. The lack of objectivity and the reliance upon

distortion and selective quotation that characterize Singer's

"scholarship" are surprising when one considers that he presents

himself as an ethicist and moralist." [p.109]

Sharon M. Russell and Charles S. Nicholl. "A Dissection of the

Chapter "Tools for Research" in Peter Singer's Animal

Liberation". Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology

and Medicine. February 1996, Vol.211 No.2. pp.109-138

SINGER RESPONDS

[deleted for brevity]

Peter Singer. "Blind Hostility: A Response to Russell and

Nicholl". Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and

Medicine. February 1996, Vol.211 No.2. pp.139-146

RUSSELL AND NICHOLL REPLY

"We were not surprised by the tone of Peter Singer's response to

our commentary but we admit to astonishment at the minor points

of criticism that he selected to attempt to rebut." [p.147]

"We believe that it appropriate to allow Singer the last word in

this debate. In a letter to the editor of an Australian newspaper

complaining about a columnist's opinion piece about Singer's

views on euthanasia, Singer and, his occasional coauthor, Helga

Kuhse conclude:

"There are other serious errors in Mr. Dominguez's articles, but

two are enough to make our point. A writer who makes such

flagrant errors does not deserve to be taken seriously - or

published in a newspaper that wishes its opinion pages to be

taken seriously."

We could not have said it better ourselves." [p.154]

Sharon M. Russell and Charles S. Nicholl. "Reply to Singer's "Blind

Hostility"." Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and

Medicine. February 1996, Vol.211 No.2. pp.147-154