<p>Growing up as a child, we had a Dog. To us, it was like a means to an end. That is, hunting other animals for food and for protection, with no special care and treatment given to this animal. Butas days passed by I began to witness a wind of change against such actions. I was made to understand that we were committing two crimes-: using the Dog as a means to an end (for hunting and for eating animals). Today almost every newspaper has something to say about the treatment of animals by humans, especially in their use as experimentation subjects. This has led to the wide spread arguments about “Animal right” and “Animal equality” Advocates of the above arguments hold that just like humans, animals too have rights and are in many ways like humans. There also exist animal right groups. Organisations and countries now have laws regulating animal used in the laboratory. If I may be permitted, I will want to say that the world is in a state of dilemma regarding animal experimentation. While some argue against it, based on the claim that these animals have no right and are not equal to humans, others argue in favour of it on claims that animals have moral rights, feel pain and suffer just like humans and should not be subjected to painful experiments. I then begin to wander how research on animals to improve human health should not be undertaken just because it is claimed that these animals have rights and are in many ways equal to humans. It is the contention of this paper to find out the extent to which animal rights and animal equality justifies the fight against animal experimentation.</p>

Growing up as a child, we had a Dog. To us, it was like a means to an end. That is, hunting other animals for food and for protection, with no special care and treatment given to this animal. Butas days passed by I began to witness a wind of change against such actions. I was made to understand that we were committing two crimes-: using the Dog as a means to an end (for hunting and for eating animals). Today almost every newspaper has something to say about the treatment of animals by humans, especially in their use as experimentation subjects. This has led to the wide spread arguments about “Animal right” and “Animal equality” Advocates of the above arguments hold that just like humans, animals too have rights and are in many ways like humans. There also exist animal right groups. Organisations and countries now have laws regulating animal used in the laboratory. If I may be permitted, I will want to say that the world is in a state of dilemma regarding animal experimentation. While some argue against it, based on the claim that these animals have no right and are not equal to humans, others argue in favour of it on claims that animals have moral rights, feel pain and suffer just like humans and should not be subjected to painful experiments. I then begin to wander how research on animals to improve human health should not be undertaken just because it is claimed that these animals have rights and are in many ways equal to humans. It is the contention of this paper to find out the extent to which animal rights and animal equality justifies the fight against animal experimentation.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T15:12:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 AnselmoCO_DISSERT.pdf: 1468756 bytes, checksum: 13c794c8c2ed091a0986d24349272b48 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-10-11 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior / This research aims to reconstruct and explain the argument proposed by Peter Singer to justify the principle of equal consideration of interests (PECI). The PECI is the basic normative principle according to people should consider the interests of all sentient beings affected when somebody taking a moral decision. It is the join that Singer proposes between universalizability and the principle of equal consideration of interests that constitutes a compelling reason to justify it. The universalizability requires to disregard the numerical differences, putting yourself in other people s shoes, and to consider preferences, interests, desires and ideals of those affected. Singer joins universalizability to normative principle and molds the form and content of his theory. The first chapter introduces the discussion will be developed in this essay. The second chapter deals the historical and philosophical viewpoint from which Singer starts his studies. The third chapter is about the Singer s critiques of naturalism, intuitionism, relativism, simple subjectivism and emotivism. The fourth chapter exposes the design of universal prescriptivism proposed by R. M. Hare. The universal prescriptivism indicates, in the Singer s viewpoint, a consistent way to create the join between the universalizability and PECI. It highlights also the criticism designed by J. L. Mackie and Singer himself to universal prescriptivism. The second part of this chapter shows briefly some of the main points of the classical conception of utilitarianism and its possible relationship with the theory of Singer. The fifth chapter introduces the Singer s thesis about the origin of ethics and the universalizability as a feature necessary to the point of view of ethic, and the way which this argument is developed to form the PECI. The sixth chapter exposes the main distinctions that characterize the PECI. Finally the seventh chapter provides a discussion about the reasons highlighted by Singer for one who wants orient his life according to the standpoint of ethics. This structure allows explaining the main ideas of the author concerning the theoretical foundations of his moral philosophy / Esta investiga??o tem como objetivo reconstruir e explicitar o argumento proposto por Peter Singer para justificar o princ?pio de igual considera??o de interesses (PICI). O PICI ? o princ?pio normativo b?sico segundo o qual as pessoas devem considerar igualmente os interesses de todos os seres sencientes afetados ao tomarem uma decis?o moral. ? o v?nculo que Singer estabelece entre a universalizabilidade e o princ?pio de igual considera??o de interesses que se constitui em uma raz?o convincente para justific?-lo. A universalizabilidade consiste na exig?ncia de desconsiderar as diferen?as num?ricas, de colocar-se no lugar do outro e de considera??o igual pelas prefer?ncias, interesses, desejos e ideais dos afetados. Singer ao vincular a universalizabilidade e o princ?pio normativo estabelece a forma e o conte?do da sua teoria. No primeiro cap?tulo, introduzimos a discuss?o que ser? desenvolvida nesta disserta??o. No segundo cap?tulo, apresentamos o panorama hist?rico-filos?fico no qual Singer inicia suas investiga??es. No terceiro cap?tulo, apresentamos a sua cr?tica ao naturalismo, intuicionismo, relativismo e subjetivismo simples e, por fim, ao emotivismo. No quarto cap?tulo, expomos a concep??o do prescritivismo universal proposta por R. M. Hare. O prescritivismo universal indica, para Singer, uma forma consistente para estabelecer o v?nculo entre a universalizabilidade e o PICI. Apontamos, tamb?m, as cr?ticas feitas por J. L. Mackie e pelo pr?prio Singer ao prescritivismo universal. Na segunda parte do cap?tulo, apresentamos resumidamente alguns pontos centrais da concep??o cl?ssica do utilitarismo e uma poss?vel rela??o com a teoria de Singer. No quinto cap?tulo, apresentamos a tese de Singer sobre a origem da ?tica e sobre a universalizabilidade como uma caracter?stica necess?ria do ponto de vista da ?tica, bem como o argumento que ? desenvolvido para estabelecer o PICI. No sexto cap?tulo, expomos as principais distin??es que caracterizam o PICI. Encerramos no s?timo cap?tulo com uma discuss?o sobre as raz?es apresentadas por Singer para que uma pessoa oriente a sua vida de acordo com o ponto de vista da ?tica. Essa estrutura permite-nos explicitar as principais ideias do autor naquilo que concerne aos fundamentos te?ricos da sua filosofia moral