Colin Blakemore, a neuroscientist, and an advertisement advisor to the Food Standard Agency (FSA) of Great Britain. Gave his perspective during an interview on the issues of animal rights. He support the use of animals in medical research and suggested that drugs should be tested on humans because it will cut the time and cost of new drugs. Blakemore showed his contentment that animals do not have rights because they don’t earn them and they can’t be responsible for themselves by their own behavior. We give them rights, but they don’t know about it. Blackmore asked, “Where we draw the line if not between humans and animals.” He believes that instead of people debating on animal rights they rather talk about responsibilities. The reason for …show more content…
It’s because they are trying to be decent people. To elaborate on his point, he made an ironic comparison of what we do when we come in contact with mosquitoes. We smack them because they are blood-sucking animal that carry disease. With a lot animals like that in the world, our primary responsibility should be our own species. As a result of his decision on animal rights, Blakemore faces challenges such as threats from animal liberation terrorists attempting to bomb his house on several occasions and mobs trying to attack his house, but they were unsuccessful. Animal liberators are violent when it comes to the animal rights they attack labs and invade people’s home all in the name of rights. (Sholto, 28-30.) Born To Be Wild by Drew Fellman is a short documentary about orphaned orangutan in Indonesia and elephants in Kenya. The orphanages were built by two independent organizations with the sole aim to help preserve species, and to help orphans …show more content…
This is because animals have feeling and families like we do even though they are genetically different. They are struggling to survive with no power and researchers think it is ok to torture these creatures for the advancement of science and medicine. Blakemore suggested that drugs should be tested on humans because it will cut the time and cost of new drugs. Humans should consider this suggestion because this will stop the killing and experimenting on animals. Slaughterhouses are one of the major violators of these laws, mistreat, and animal abuse. A study done on slaughterhouse by Flinders University, a senior sociology lecturer Dr. Nik Taylor, showed that “the more positive a person's attitude to animals, the lower their aggression levels, and that the reverse is also true – if you're cruel to animals, you're more likely to be violent to humans.” Also, research has found that towns with slaughterhouse have higher rates of domestic violence and violent crimes including murder and rape, which prompted the Australian team to investigate the situation. (Tory Shepherd.) To reduce the violations and violence done by workers at slaughterhouses and meat industries, constant examination, inspections should be done, and psychological therapy should be organized for workers because they are work with live animals coming in and killing them. This will help to improve the condition of both the
"The Case For Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view, as he suggests that humans and animals alike, share the experience of life, and thus share equal, inherent value.
Loeb, Jerod M. “Human vs. Animal Rights: In Defense of Animal Research.” Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. Gilford: Dushkin Publishing Group, 2011
This essay argues against Hanlon’s stance on that scientific animal testing and poultry farming violates animal rights, and vivisection is a not moral necessary to allow humans to discover cures for disease and to make drugs.
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
Throughout the last century the concern of animals being treated as just a product has become a growing argument. Some believe that animals are equal to the human and should be treated with the same respect. There are many though that laugh at that thought, and continue to put the perfectly roasted turkey on the table each year. Gary Steiner is the author of the article “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, that was published in the New York Times right before Thanksgiving in 2009. He believes the use of animals as a benefit to human beings is inhumane and murderous. Gary Steiner’s argument for these animal’s rights is very compelling and convincing to a great extent.
Animal testing is a subject appalled by many people. It is considered to be unethical, inhumane, and downright cruel. One of these reasons for the opposition of animal experimentation is due to the belief shared by many animal activist groups, such as PETA, that animals are kept in appalling living conditions in research facilities. Reasons to believe this are caused by minor instances of laboratories not abiding the law. However, despite these instances the welfare of test animals are preserved by many laws and regulatio...
As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists
Animal testing is a controversial topic with two main sides of the argument. The side apposing animal testing states it is unethical and inhumane; that animals have a right to choose where and how they live instead of being subjected to experiments. The view is that all living organism have a right of freedom; it is a right, not a privilege. The side for animal testing thinks that it should continue, without animal testing there would be fewer medical and scientific breakthroughs. This side states that the outcome is worth the investment of testing on animals. The argument surrounding animal testing is older than the United States of America, dating back to the 1650’s when Edmund O’Meara stated that vivisection, the dissection of live animals, is an unnatural act. Although this is one of the first major oppositions to animal testing, animal testing was being practiced for millennia beforehand. There are two sides apposing each other in the argument of animal testing, and the argument is one of the oldest arguments still being debated today.
Since ancient times, animals have been the subjects of medical and safety testing. But only relatively recently has discontent been expressed by large numbers of people. Referred to as animal rights activists, this displeasured community condemns all animal use in medical, product testing, and research experiments despite the beneficiary outcomes because they firmly believe that interfering with another living creature’s life is immorally and ethically wrong. One individual who sides with the activists is named Jamie Aronson. Having earned a Ph.D from the University of Massachusetts located in Boston, Aronson affirms that “animals do not have a voice in our society.” Opposing Aronson is the duo of Patricia George and professor of State University
The ugly truth is that animals are dying at the hands of their owners everyday, some in very violent ways that can be avoidable given the right solution. Slaughterhouses, puppy mills, dog fighting, and so on, are just a few examples of how animals are being treated badly by people. Animal cruelty is a form of violence which, un...
Peter Singer, an author and philosophy professor, “argues that because animals have nervous systems and can suffer just as much as humans can, it is wrong for humans to use animals for research, food, or clothing” (Singer 17). Do animals have any rights? Is animal experimentation ethical? These are questions many struggle with day in and day out in the ongoing battle surrounding the controversial topic of animal research and testing, known as vivisection. Throughout centuries, medical research has been conducted on animals.
Every year, millions of animals experience painful, suffering and death due to results of scientific research as the effects of drugs, medical procedures, food additives, cosmetics and other chemical products. Basically, animal experimentation has played a dominant role in leading with new findings and human advantages. Animal research has had a main function in many scientific and medical advances in the past decade and is helping in the understanding of several diseases. While most people believe than animal testing is necessary, others are worried about the excessive suffering of this innocent’s creatures. The balance between the rights of animals and their use in medical research is a delicate issue with huge societal assumptions. Nowadays people are trying to understand and take in consideration these social implications based in animals rights. Even though, many people tend to disregard animals that have suffered permanent damage during experimentation time. Many people try to misunderstand the nature of life that animals just have, and are unable to consider the actual laboratory procedures and techniques that these creatures tend to be submitted. Animal experimentation must be excluded because it is an inhumane way of treat animals, it is unethical, and exist safer ways to test products without painful test.
Animals have their own rights as do to humans and we should respect that and give them the same respect we give each other. Animals deserve to be given those same basic rights as humans. All humans are considered equal and ethical principles and legal statutes should protect the rights of animals to live according to their own nature and remain free from exploitation. This paper is going to argue that animals deserve to have the same rights as humans and therefore, we don’t have the right to kill or harm them in any way. The premises are the following: animals are living things thus they are valuable sentient beings, animals have feeling just like humans, and animals feel pain therefore animal suffering is wrong. 2 sources I will be using for my research are “The Fight for Animal Rights” by Jamie Aronson, an article that presents an argument in favour of animal rights. It also discusses the counter argument – opponents of animal rights argue that animals have less value than humans, and as a result, are undeserving of rights. Also I will be using “Animal Liberation” by Peter Singer. This book shows many aspects; that all animals are equal is the first argument or why the ethical principle on which human equality rests requires us to extend equal consideration to animals too.
Animals are used in research to develop new medicines and for scientists to test the safety of the medicines. This animal testing is called vivisection. Research is being carried out at universities, medical schools and even in primary and elementary schools as well as in commercial facilities which provide animal experiments to industry. (UK Parliament) In addition, animals are also used in cosmetic testing, toxicology tests, “defense research” and “xenotransplantation”. All around the world, a huge amount of animals are sentenced to life in a laboratory cage and they are obliged to feel loneliness and pain. In addition scientists causing pain, most drugs that pas successfully in animals fail in humans. It is qualified as a bad science. Above all, animals have rights not to be harmed even though the Animal Welfare Act does not provide them even with minimal protection. The law does not find it necessary to use current alternatives to animals, even if they are obtainable. Animal testing should be banned due to animal rights, ethical issues, alternative ways and the unreliability of test results in humans.
Animals are taken from their natural habitat and conveyed to a laboratory, an entirely new world to them. Experimented and enslaved in a cage on a daily basis and they can’t do anything about it. People believe that just because they are animals they do not have sentiments, but on the contrary animals are just like humans. Not in the physical aspect, but indeed are similar in the mental aspect. It is not fair for animals to be treated harshly when they have done nothing wrong. Humans take away their rights to live freely in their habitat, allowing them to contribute to their ecosystem. Science has advanced abundantly, scientist should not be required to perform experiments on animals there are other resources that can