Which of the following can we infer from Singer's argument that in many experiments on nonhuman animals, "the possible benefits to mankind are either nonexistent or fantastically remote; while the certain losses to members of other species are very real"?
A) Some experimentation might be morally permissible if the benefits to mankind were real, immediate, and significant and the losses to the animal subjects were given equal consideration.
B) No experimentation would ever be morally permissible even if the benefits to mankind were real, immediate, and significant and the losses to the animal subjects were given equal consideration.
C) All experimentation on animals is morally wrong since it involves unequal treatment of animals and human beings.
D) It is impossible to experiment on animals while giving their interests equal consideration.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Singer's argument implies that the moral permissibility of animal experimentation hinges on a balance between the real, immediate, and significant benefits to humans and the consideration of the losses to animals. This suggests that if both conditions were met, some experiments might be morally permissible, aligning with choice A.

Which of the Following Can We Infer from Singer's Argument