Question

Suppose that your friend, call him "CC", argues that using Rhesus monkeys in medical research maximizes happiness, and since a good result is one with maximum happiness, we should therefore use Rhesus monkeys in medical research. However, in response to CC, you apply Moore's Open Question Argument. Which two questions do you form in making your counterargument?

A) Is happiness the only good?
B) Does using Rhesus monkeys maximize happiness?
C) Is using Rhesus monkeys in medical research right?
D) Are there alternative methods that maximize happiness?

Answer 1

In countering the argument for using Rhesus monkeys in medical research based on utilitarian principles, Moore's Open Question Argument presents two critical questions: whether happiness is the only measure of goodness, and if it's ethically right to use Rhesus monkeys for such purposes. These challenge the singular focus on happiness maximization and the ethical considerations in medical research involving sentient non-human beings.

Step-by-step explanation:

Applying Moore's Open Question Argument in response to your friend 'CC' who uses a utilitarian framework to justify the use of Rhesus monkeys in medical research, two crucial questions emerge:

1. Is happiness the only good?
2. Does using Rhesus monkeys in medical research right?

These questions are vital as they challenge the premises of CC's argument. The first question invites us to consider whether happiness is the sole measure of what is good. This leads to an exploration of other potential values and ethical considerations that may be important, such as the rights of sentient beings. When it comes to utilitarianism and ethics, it is essential to weigh the interests and welfare of all affected parties, so this question is not straightforwardly resolved.

The second question directly queries the ethical foundation of medical research on Rhesus monkeys, prompting a deeper analysis of research practices. Here, the importance lies in assessing whether such research indeed maximizes happiness and whether this potential increase justifies the means. Additionally, we may consider if there are alternative methods that could achieve the same results without using animal subjects, thereby potentially maximizing happiness without causing harm to non-human sentient beings.

Answering these questions involves scrutinizing the assumptions made by CC in using a utilitarian approach, as pointed out by philosophers like Peter Singer, who includes all sentient beings in the utility calculation, not just humans. Moreover, the Harlows' study on rhesus monkeys reminds us that social comfort has been deemed more important than food for the well-being of primates, which can be extrapolated to implications of psychological welfare in medical research contexts.