Daniel Balter
80-130
Essay 1
9-29-17
The Flaws Of The Argument From Marginal Cases
The Argument from Marginal Cases is rooted in the idea that certain human beings are “marginal,” in that they are considered lesser, in their abilities or in their value, than other humans. For example, humans with mental or physical disabilities (and in some cases even infants), within the argument from marginal cases, are considered less valuable than the humans without these disabilities, and thus do not deserve the same ethical considerations. This argument becomes relevant when considered within the context of animal rights. The argument from marginal cases states that many animals have the same mental capacity as these “marginal” individuals, and …show more content…
Currently, science uses animals to test products from make-up to new medical improvements for two major reasons: (i) we can get them in large quantity with relatively little difference between each animal test case, and (ii) there is no moral consequence to the products being tested killing the animals. If we assume that there is no difference in moral value between “marginal” humans and these animals, then there is no moral consequence to the products being tested killing the “marginal” humans they’re being tested on. However, the problem with using “marginal” humans for scientific testing comes from the inability to get them in high quantity, combined with the fact that these specific humans may have disabilities or mutations that are not present in the majority of the human population, and thusly make them awful subjects for scientific experimentation / testing. Although it seems beneficial to do testing of human products on humans, the inconsistency caused by using “marginal” humans who are, by our definition, made of different physical properties than the rest of the human population, could pose a problem. This means that although Norcross proposes that we could use “marginal” humans for the testing we currently use animals for, there is no potential benefit to such a choice and possibly …show more content…
However, it is important to note that there is vast room for improvement within this argument (reference previous section). Although there is no way to stand behind an argument that condones treating “marginal” humans the same way we currently treat animals, it is easy to argue that animals deserve to be treated similarly, or at least closer to as well, as we currently treat “marginal” humans, with some of the same protected rights. Perhaps the arguments for animal rights that organizations like PETA push for could be merged with a modified form of the argument from marginal cases in order to create a set of guidelines for how to treat those we view as less morally valuable than ourselves. Either way, the one thing that should be clear is that as presented by Norcross, the argument from marginal cases suffers from many fatal flaws, including a massive lack of practicality, that ultimately make it nothing more than an indefensible theory.
Bibliography https://blog.adioma.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/counting-the-people-you-impact-infographic.png Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Fundamentals of Ethics. New York :Oxford University Press, 2015.
80-130
Essay 1
9-29-17
The Flaws Of The Argument From Marginal Cases
The Argument from Marginal Cases is rooted in the idea that certain human beings are “marginal,” in that they are considered lesser, in their abilities or in their value, than other humans. For example, humans with mental or physical disabilities (and in some cases even infants), within the argument from marginal cases, are considered less valuable than the humans without these disabilities, and thus do not deserve the same ethical considerations. This argument becomes relevant when considered within the context of animal rights. The argument from marginal cases states that many animals have the same mental capacity as these “marginal” individuals, and …show more content…
Currently, science uses animals to test products from make-up to new medical improvements for two major reasons: (i) we can get them in large quantity with relatively little difference between each animal test case, and (ii) there is no moral consequence to the products being tested killing the animals. If we assume that there is no difference in moral value between “marginal” humans and these animals, then there is no moral consequence to the products being tested killing the “marginal” humans they’re being tested on. However, the problem with using “marginal” humans for scientific testing comes from the inability to get them in high quantity, combined with the fact that these specific humans may have disabilities or mutations that are not present in the majority of the human population, and thusly make them awful subjects for scientific experimentation / testing. Although it seems beneficial to do testing of human products on humans, the inconsistency caused by using “marginal” humans who are, by our definition, made of different physical properties than the rest of the human population, could pose a problem. This means that although Norcross proposes that we could use “marginal” humans for the testing we currently use animals for, there is no potential benefit to such a choice and possibly …show more content…
However, it is important to note that there is vast room for improvement within this argument (reference previous section). Although there is no way to stand behind an argument that condones treating “marginal” humans the same way we currently treat animals, it is easy to argue that animals deserve to be treated similarly, or at least closer to as well, as we currently treat “marginal” humans, with some of the same protected rights. Perhaps the arguments for animal rights that organizations like PETA push for could be merged with a modified form of the argument from marginal cases in order to create a set of guidelines for how to treat those we view as less morally valuable than ourselves. Either way, the one thing that should be clear is that as presented by Norcross, the argument from marginal cases suffers from many fatal flaws, including a massive lack of practicality, that ultimately make it nothing more than an indefensible theory.
Bibliography https://blog.adioma.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/counting-the-people-you-impact-infographic.png Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Fundamentals of Ethics. New York :Oxford University Press, 2015.