In her essay “A Question of Ethics,” Jane Goodall, a scientist who has studied chimpanzees for years, tries to resolve a heavily debated ethical dilemma: Under what circumstances is it acceptable to cause animal suffering to prevent human suffering? Her answer, however, remains uncertain. Although Goodall challenges scientists to avoid conducting unnecessary tests on animals, she does not explain the criteria by which scientists should determine necessity. Goodall argues that her readers have an ethical obligation to protect animals from suffering, but she also implies that it might be necessary sometimes to abandon that obligation. She points out that animals share similar traits with human beings: they have a capacity for certain human emotions, and they may be capable of legitimate friendship. Goodall’s evidence for this claim is an anecdote from her research. She recounts that one chimpanzee in her study, named David Greybeard, “gently squeezed [her] hand” when she offered him food (62). Appealing to readers’ emotions, Goodall hopes to persuade readers that the chimp is “sociable” and “sentient,” or feeling (62). According to Goodall’s logic, if researchers are careful to avoid tests that cause human suffering, they should also be careful to avoid tests that cause suffering for other life forms. When Goodall asserts that scientists shouldn’t mindlessly test animals if alternative tests are available, she is in effect conceding that sometimes animals will have to suffer for the sake of helping human beings. Yet if it is unacceptable in some cases to cause sentient beings to suffer, why would it not always be unacceptable? When could compassionate people be comfortable with the prospect of causing David Greybeard mental and p... ... middle of paper ... ...beings than chimpanzees are, and if they justify less stringent protection, then might a test be “essential” if it could be performed on a rat, but “nonessential” if it could be performed only on a chimpanzee? Researchers could conduct more ethically responsible animal testing if they used some species and exempted others from testing based on a reasoned determination of their similarity to or difference from human beings in mental capacity. Although Goodall perhaps intended to call for improving animal laboratory conditions, her essay has also raised some questions about this important ethical issue. The stakes of animal testing are too high and the issue too complex to leave the question of necessity unanswered. To treat human beings as well as animals with the dignity they deserve, medical researchers will need to continue refining their definition of essential.
Nonetheless, animal enthusiasts request the banishment of animal experimentation in the laboratory. Unlike in the past century, both views have finally reached an agreement in this debate: as of now, a limited amount of rodents, or primates, such as white mice and rhesus monkeys can be tested in the laboratory. Which begs the question, why are these selected fews continue to be subject to gruesome experimentation unlike their brethren? Additionally, their moral status is lesser than other fauna, and shouldn’t they instead receive the same respect as well?
The practice of using animals for testing has been a controversial issue over the past thirty years. Animal testing is a morally debated practice. The question is whether animal testing is morally right or wrong. This paper will present both sides of this issue as well as my own opinion.
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.
Testing animals is used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medicinal drugs, check the safety of products intended for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and healthcare roles. The earliest recordings of animal studies date back to Aristotle, who discovered the anatomical differences among animals by analyzing them (Introduction). Advocates of animal testing say that it has enabled the growth of numerous medical advancements, tests to see if new products are save for mankind, acquisition of new scientific knowledge, and because it is accurate (B). Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to try out on animals, many animals die from the animal testing, it’s unethical, animals don’t have a say in it, the accuracy is in question because they are testing animals and not humans, and the toll of animal testing is high (B). Through the pros and cons of everything, it is bad to test animals because animals are very different from human beings and thus make poor test subjects and are unreliable, the cost and upkeep of it is expensive, and because there are alternatives to animal testi...
The issue of animal testing has become an important topic of debate because despite the cruel and inhumane treatment of laboratory animals, people who support animal testing claim that the research benefits are phenomenal and surely outweigh the animals’ pain and suffering. I feel as though the question of whether or not animal testing is immoral is an easy answer. Animal testing on any species is unethical and should be abolished as soon as possible because it is a form of animal cruelty, provides inaccurate results, and there are better alternatives that can be pursued.
Much controversy surrounds the humanity or inhumanity of using defenseless animals in experiments. Animals endure excruciating pain and suffer harsh conditions when used to test products. Many argue that animals are unable to consent to the tests. They are forced to undergo the pain put upon them and often die or are euthanized when no longer needed. Human beings feel as if they are superior to and more valuable than animals, yet, humans are more similar to chimpanzees than chimp...
Doctors and scientists have recognized that while animals are somewhat biologically similar to humans, they are not exactly identical. (Animal Testing- A Necessary Evil? 2014) The EOInternational stated:
The question of whether or not animal testing is morally right or wrong has been debated for years, with each side presenting valid arguments. But when it comes down to morals and common compassion, animal testing that involves inflicting pain is always wrong. Cruelty supporters argue that no matter the pain, the 98.8 percent similarity between chimps and humans genes is too medically useful to be wasted. Most experiments scientists perform on chimps involve their brains, which have the same gene regions as humans. This similarities of the
Every year, millions of animals are injured or killed in scientific experiments across the world. Those in favor of animal experimentation say they’re taking animals’ lives to save humans. But is it really necessary to subject animals to torturous conditions or painful experiments in the name of science? Is it ethical to destroy an animal’s life while simply testing lipstick or shampoo? Animal experimentation, like many of the issues we face today, is difficult to argue against, and just as hard to support, but it is necessary to continue this experimentation in order to advance human knowledge and to help save human lives.
“The question is not, can they reason, nor, can they talk. But can they suffer?” (Bentham). Each year over a hundred million animals endure a number of experiments in an attempt to make human lives easier. These experiments range from cosmetic testing to medical research, sadly neither of these tests are needed. Many people will accept animal research because they believe that these animals aren’t suffering (“Harm and Suffering”) or they believe that animal testing in beneficial to humans. In reality, these animals suffer for mankind, when the need does not exist. Animal testing creates unnecessary pain and suffering for animals, when in reality most experiments will not benefit human health.
Throughout history, animal testing has played an important role in leading to new discoveries and human benefit. However, what many people forget are the great numbers of animals that have suffered serious harm during the process of animal testing. Animal testing is the use of animals in biological, medical, and psychological studies. The development and enhancement of medical research has been based on the testing of animals. There are many questions being asked if animal research is good or not or if the benefit for us is way greater the abuse of animals. Doing tests on animals can help find ways to cure diseases, but testing on them is wrong. Although we want to find cures for diseases to help many people, testing on animals not only brutally hurts them but it also denies the animals the rights they have.
Because of animal experimentation, scientists are able to advance in medicine and find cures and treatments, but all this must pay a prize. Animals in these experiments suffer and even die for the cause. Many argue that it is inhumane and cruel. Others would argue that animal experimentation is beneficial and necessary. The viewpoints between Jane Goodall and Dario Ringach are different when it comes to animal testing, but they’re after the same goal: caring for the animals and wanting to look for cures and treatments.
Each year, millions of animals, ranging from mice to monkeys, suffer through the cruel and inhumane practice of animal testing. Scientist throughout the world are torturing animals for mankind’s own benefit, which is unreliable in most cases. “According to Humane Society International, animals that are used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing processes and the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies.” Although humans often benefit from successful animal research, these animals do not have a voice to say no. The pain, suffering, and deaths inflicted on these animals are not worth the possible human benefits. Scientist test the animals for many products that we humans can use (makeup, medicine, etc.). Many of the items we purchase on a regular basis have been tested on animals first. Most of the animal testing is unreliable.
Should animals be harmed to benefit mankind? This pressing question has been around for at least the past two centuries. During the early nineteenth century, animal experiments emerged as an important method of science and, in fact, marked the birth of experimental physiology and neuroscience as we currently know it. There were, however, guidelines that existed even back then which restricted the conditions of experimentation. These early rules protected the animals, in the sense that all procedures performed were done so with as little pain as possible and solely to investigate new truths. Adopting the animals? perspectives, they would probably not agree that these types of regulations were much protection, considering the unwanted pain that they felt first followed by what would ultimately be their death. But, this is exactly the ethical issue at hand. For the most part, animal rights are debated in regards to two issues: 1) whether animals have the ability to rationalize or go through a logical thought process and 2) whether or not animals are able to experience pain. However, ?it will not do simply to cite differences between humans and animals in order to provide a rational basis for excluding animals from the scope of our moral deliberations? (Rollin 7). This, Bernard Rollin claims, would be silly. He says that to do this is comparable to a person with a full head of hair excluding all bald men from his moral deliberations simply because they are bald. The true ethical question involved is, ?do these differences serve to justify a moral difference?? (Rollin 7). Also, which differences between humans and non-humans are significant enough to be considered in determining the non-human?s fate?
A major ethical concern that has been under speculation for many of years is focused around animal ethics, and whether or not certain animal practices are just or inhuman. There are many questions that focus around fundamental issues concerning the moral status of animals. It is critical to understand the difference between a concern for animal welfare and a concern for animal rights. A current issue that is important to understand and analyze is animal experimentation, and although many consider it to be an unethical practice, there are many pros and cons to the controversial topic. Although animal experimentation has been very beneficial medically, the argument can be made that using animals to experiment is not always necessary.