동물실험과 심의

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This article deals with animal experiment in terms of deliberative theory.
Firstly, it outlines the arguments for and against animal experiment, and then examines the moral standing of animals in views of Habermas and Rawls who are outstanding theorists in the camp of deliberative democracy. In doing so, we expect that we catch the implicit features of deliberative theory. It is important that animals as well as humans are sentient beings and higher animals have the ability of self-consciousness. Animals should be treated differently fromin animate beings. However, Regan and Singer overemphasize the standing of animals. In reality, it is impossible for to respect the inherent worth of animals and to put the principle of equal consideration of interests into practice. As Habermas and Rawls see, morality is only the social constructions which humans make for social cooperation. We meet the dilemma around moral motivation, “Why should we be moral?”, if we adhere to the principles of Regan and Singer in the extreme. Animals are not instrumental beings for human and at the same time, it is not wrong of us to discriminate against animals on the ground of species. We should respect animals at the level of which we can secureour survival and the development of our civilization. In this context, we should avoid animal experiment as possible, but it can be justifiable unless we have any alternative. In this case, we should make efforts to reduce the suffering of animals. We agree to 3R principles: reduction, refinement, and replacement.