Recent decades have witnessed a slowly expanding "circle of compassion". But it is a circle with one species at its absolute centre. Can Ethics ever aspire to be a rigorous academic discipline that delivers an impartial perspective embracing the interests of all sentient life: the well being of posthuman, human and non-human animals; hypothetical extra-terrestrial life, future "cyborgs", and artificial life alike? Or will Ethics always serve to rationalize the self-interest of the world's most powerful lifeforms?...Be sure to read the entire article.
...Unfortunately, no such moral clarity was on display in the European Parliament earlier this month. An initial vote passed by EC legislators on May 5, 2009 sets guidelines on the "upper" limit of suffering that humans can lawfully inflict on non-human animals used in scientific experiments. Every year around 12 million non-human animals are used in scientific research in EU nations in the course of commercial product-testing, biomedical research, or open-ended scientific inquiry. Legally permissible levels of suffering inflicted can range from "up to mild" to "moderate" to "severe." Non-human animals are "reusable" if the testing entails up to "moderate" pain. The new EC regulations also cover our closest living relatives, non-human primates. Each year around 10,000 non-human primates are killed in European laboratories. The new parliamentary directive recommends phasing out wild-caught animals in favor of laboratory-bred animals over a 10-year period; and calls for an unspecified overall reduction in the number of non-human primates experimented on.
May 27, 2009
David Pearce: Post-Darwinian Ethics?
British philosopher David Pearce, who guest blogged here in April, has written a fascinating piece for H+ Magazine about post-Darwinian ethics and the principles of morals and legislation. Pearce writes:
Miongo ya hivi karibuni imeona "mzunguko wa huruma" ukiongezeka polepole. Lakini ni mduara na spishi moja katika kituo chake kabisa. Je, etiki inaweza kuwa na tamaa ya kuwa nidhamu ya kitaaluma ya dhati ambayo hutoa mtazamo wa kutokuwa na upendeleo unaojumuisha maslahi ya maisha yote ya hisia: ustawi wa wanyama wa baada ya binadamu, binadamu na wasio binadamu; maisha ya nadharia ya nje ya dunia, "cyborgs" ya siku zijazo, na maisha ya bandia? Au je, Maadili daima yatatumika kuhalalisha maslahi ya kibinafsi ya viumbe wenye nguvu zaidi ulimwenguni?... Hakikisha kusoma makala nzima. ...Kwa bahati mbaya, hakuna uwazi kama huo wa maadili ulionyeshwa katika Bunge la Ulaya mapema mwezi huu. Mkataba wa EU wa 5 wa Mei 2009 uliweka mipaka ya juu ya mateso ambayo binadamu anaweza kuwapatia wanyama wa kawaida katika majaribio ya kisayansi. Kila mwaka karibu wanyama milioni 12 hutumiwa katika utafiti wa kisayansi katika nchi za EU katika mchakato wa majaribio ya bidhaa za kibiashara, utafiti wa biomedical, au uchunguzi wa kisayansi wa wazi. Viwango vinavyoruhusiwa kisheria vya kuteseka vinaweza kutofautiana kutoka "hadi laini" hadi "kiwango cha kati" hadi "kubwa". Wanyama wasio wanadamu ni "kuweza kutumika tena" kama majaribio yanaongoza hadi maumivu ya "kiwango cha chini". Sheria mpya za EU pia zinahusu jamaa zetu wa karibu zaidi wanaoishi, primates zisizo za binadamu. Kila mwaka, karibu wanyama 10,000 wa jamii ya primates huuawa katika maabara za Ulaya. Amri hiyo mpya ya bunge inapendekeza kuondolewa kwa wanyama waliokamatwa katika mazingira ya asili kwa ajili ya wanyama waliozaliwa katika maabara kwa kipindi cha miaka kumi, na inatoa wito wa kupunguza kwa ujumla idadi ya primates zisizo za binadamu zilizotumiwa majaribio. "Mwezi wa 5 ""Mwanzo wa Utamaduni wa Darwinian""" Mwanafalsafa wa Uingereza David Pearse, ambaye alikuwa mgeni hapa mnamo Aprili, ameandika kipande cha kuvutia kwa H+ Magazine kuhusu maadili ya baada ya Darwin na kanuni za maadili na sheria. Pearce aandika hivi: