Summary of Ethical dilemma: Whose life is more valuable? - Rebecca L. Walker
Summary
The video presented by Rebecca L. Walker explores the ethical dilemma surrounding the use of animals in research, particularly in the context of smallpox, a disease that has been eradicated but still poses potential threats due to existing virus samples. The U.S. government is funding research to develop better treatments and vaccines against smallpox, raising the question of whether it is ethical to harm animals, especially our closest biological relatives, in order to protect human lives.
Walker discusses the historical context of animal testing, which often prioritizes human welfare over animal welfare, leading to a widespread belief that human lives hold greater value. This raises a philosophical inquiry into how we determine the value of life, both human and non-human. The concept of moral status is central to this discussion, traditionally viewed as a binary distinction where humans possess moral status while animals do not. However, contemporary philosophers like Shelly Kagan and Christine Korsgaard suggest that moral status may exist on a spectrum, with some non-human animals deserving moral consideration due to their capacities for suffering and social complexity.
The video presents a thought experiment about sacrificing animals for human benefit, questioning the moral implications of such actions. While it is commonly accepted that sacrificing one monkey to save five humans is morally acceptable, the situation becomes more complex when considering larger numbers of animals and the uncertainty of whether the research will actually lead to saving human lives. Walker emphasizes the difficulty in quantifying acceptable risks and the moral mathematics involved in these decisions, ultimately advocating for well-justified choices in the face of ethical dilemmas.
Presenters/Contributors
Notable Quotes
— 00:54 — « But is it right to harm these animals to protect humanity from a potential threat? »
— 03:24 — « These inclusive ways of thinking about moral status dramatically widen the scope of our moral responsibility, in ways some people might find unnerving. »
— 04:00 — « And that while killing one human to save five others is typically wrong, killing one monkey to save five humans is regrettable, but morally acceptable. »
— 04:34 — « But if moral status comes in degrees and monkeys have any at all, then at some point the balance will tip. »
— 05:38 — « But whatever you decide, your choice should be well justified. »
Category
News and Commentary