In this essay I will critically review chapter three: Sharing Suffering, Instrumental relations between laboratory animals and their people by Donna Haraway from her book “When Species Meet”. I will be analyzing the main arguments that Haraway presents throughout the chapter. I will identify the evidence used to support her argument and also identify the limits of the chapter. I intend to identify connections between this chapter and the article “Cyclone Pam from the field, Adapting to climate change?” by Lucie Hazelgrove-Planel and also explain how my perspective changed from first critique of the article to post critiquing the chapter.
The main arguments presented by Haraway are about how the human must be able to interact ethically with …show more content…
It raises the concept about who decides what is an appropriate model to test human diseases and medicines. She raises the issue of whether there are sufficient reasons to justify what humans are doing to laboratory animals. She debates whether there will ever be reason enough to do with wicked risks that could happen to these animals. She discusses how this inequality in the lab stems from the lab practices and how these should be improved to recognize the importance of these animal …show more content…
While Haraway attempts to use a cost/benefit calculation I don’t this is a satisfactory defense strategy. Furthering human knowledge benefits humans the animals that die in the process receive no benefits. She offers a way of improving the animal’s lives by introducing a trainer to enhance their skills is a way of treating these animals with more face and being attuned to their reactions. This is a limit because while some might not intend for death of animals to occur they are not restricted in their ability to replace it. Using this is a method to enhance their lives may achieve that but then will people become happy with the treatment of animals and efforts to continually improve this treatment be
The main arguments presented by Haraway are about how the human must be able to interact ethically with …show more content…
It raises the concept about who decides what is an appropriate model to test human diseases and medicines. She raises the issue of whether there are sufficient reasons to justify what humans are doing to laboratory animals. She debates whether there will ever be reason enough to do with wicked risks that could happen to these animals. She discusses how this inequality in the lab stems from the lab practices and how these should be improved to recognize the importance of these animal …show more content…
While Haraway attempts to use a cost/benefit calculation I don’t this is a satisfactory defense strategy. Furthering human knowledge benefits humans the animals that die in the process receive no benefits. She offers a way of improving the animal’s lives by introducing a trainer to enhance their skills is a way of treating these animals with more face and being attuned to their reactions. This is a limit because while some might not intend for death of animals to occur they are not restricted in their ability to replace it. Using this is a method to enhance their lives may achieve that but then will people become happy with the treatment of animals and efforts to continually improve this treatment be