What are the relevant considerations in determining whether it is morally justifiable to conduct animal experiments? The first consideration is what happens to the animal – whether it interferes, kills or causes pain. Moreover, it depends on whether the obligation not to inflict severe pain on animals if one`s own welfare is not promoted is an absolute obligation or only prima facie. If it is prima facie, the justification would depend on the relative strength of the comparisons that matter for measures that would cause pain, for example, the benefits to humans from an action that would inflict pain on the animal. Most rights are prima facie and not absolute. However, the right of a (competent) person to refuse medical treatment is another example of a right that is generally considered absolute. Article 20 of the Copyright Law of the People`s Republic of China (1990) provides for an unlimited term of copyright protection, modification and author`s integrity. Since Article 55 of the same law provides for retroactive protection of the period not yet expired on the date of entry into force of this law, the eternal moral rights of the Chinese people also apply retroactively. In the 2001 version, this provision is retained and the original article 55 becomes article 59. The history of ethical thought shows that those in power have often recognized only the moral claims of others who resemble them. The human rights of many people have been ignored because of their race, class or gender. This behavior is now described as racism, classism or sexism, understood as unjustified preferential treatment of race, class or sex in power. To claim that humans are the only group with moral status sounds suspiciously like a new unwarranted bias, a bias in favor of the human species—what Peter Singer called „speciesism.“ To show that the assertion of moral status (or lack thereof) of members of other species is more than an arbitrary exercise of prejudice on the part of humanity, it is necessary to show that differences in moral position are based on morally relevant characteristics of the beings concerned. Another way to express the opinion that a being has moral status is to say that his well-being (or certain aspects of it) is inherently valuable, and not simply a means to other desirable ends.
More recent versions, such as those by Raz (1984a, 1984b), take a completely different approach. In their view, the assertion that X is the holder of rights means that its interests or any aspect thereof constitute sufficient grounds for imposing obligations on others, either not to interfere with X in the performance of an act or to secure it in something. Among other things, this circumvents the problem of third party rights, because the explanation is simply that it is all a question of whether the system recognizes Z`s interests as part of the reason for X and Y`s obligations or whether they are only the interests of X and Y. Raz (1997) pointed out that this does not mean that only the interests of the rightholder are relevant to determining whether any This needs to be acknowledged. as a right. General considerations or considerations of common interest may also be relevant. In 1978, American Cyanamid, a West Virginia-based paint company, announced that women who could have children could no longer work in corporate jobs that could expose them to lead and other chemicals potentially harmful to fetal life in order to „protect the unborn children of working employees from potential harm.“ A year later, four women interviewed by a newspaper said they needed to be sterilized to keep their well-paying jobs at American Cyanamide. While the company claimed it was trying to protect the rights of the unborn, the women said the company forced them to sacrifice their own reproductive rights. Supporters of the company agreed that an employer has the right to set the working conditions of its employees, while women`s advocates have argued that workers have the right to be protected from workplace hazards without having to choose between sterilization and job loss. Therefore, human rights are those inherent in all human beings, regardless of nationality, religion, age, ethnicity, gender or any other distinction. They contribute to the fact that every human being can live without discrimination by anyone.
The term „human rights“ is widely used by Eleanor Roosevelt. Previously, these rights were called „human rights“ (or sometimes „natural rights“). She chose „human“ as a more inclusive modifier. There is now an international and intercultural agreement that all peoples have rights simply because they are human beings. Note that this is not „because they are human.“ Being human is neither necessary nor sufficient to grasp the meaning of qualified qualities for „human rights“. A culture of human tissue would be both living and human, but not a person, and no one would claim to have human rights. This is a theme that we will return to later in this introduction when we examine the moral position of different types of creatures. Both human rights and moral rights are natural rights; These are universal rights that are not granted by governments, so they exist even when there is no government. On the other hand, legal rights are rights conferred by the law of a State; Privileges granted by the state/governments to its citizens.
So this is another difference between human rights, legal rights and moral rights. The rules of ethical behavior determine which actions or actions are necessary or prohibited. In this book, I will follow the common practice of using the „moral rule“ or „ethical rule of behavior“ closely and applying them only when there is a fairly precise specification of prohibited, authorized, or required actions or actions. For example, a manuscript submitted for publication should be a manuscript that has not yet been published, with the exception of versions written for very different audiences. General exhortations such as „Be honest“ or „Treat each person as an end and not a means“ might be called moral rules in the broad sense of „moral rules,“ but they are so general that they are commonly referred to as basic considerations or „ethical principles,“ and that`s what I`ll call them here. In short, a moral rule has a certain form, an ethical principle is a general moral consideration. Therefore, the terms „moral rule“ and „ethical principle“ can be applied to the same ethical consideration. For example, people often talk about the „principle of informed consent,“ which is the moral rule that before subjecting someone to a dangerous experiment or treatment, you must give them full information about what you intend to do and the risks involved, and obtain the person`s consent. This rule has become such a fundamental element in so many moral discussions (at least in technologically advanced democracies) that it is called a „principle.“ Although each given obligation has a corresponding moral rule, not all obligations or moral rules have corresponding rights.
There are moral rules that apply to the behavior of moral actors towards beings who, while their well-being is to be taken into account, are not the kind of beings who have rights. (This is discussed in this section in the context of „moral quality.“) The court accepted the existence of moral rights, even though the work was a commissioned work and the copyright had been transferred to the Union of India and an action was brought for 13 years under the said law (the government`s defence against the statute of limitations was rejected by the court). The law is a system of rules that a state applies to regulate behavior through punishment. Legal principles are based on the rights of citizens and the state, which are expressed in the rules. An action is admissible if it does not violate any of the written rules. Thus, one of the most important features of legal rights is that they are formulated by the state or government according to the desire of the majority for the common good of its citizens.