Is Animal Experimenting (Rats, in Particular) Right or Wrong?

1117 Words5 Pages
When it comes the issue of killing a living being for a greater good, there are so many possible justifications for either side of the argument. If I were to take a look at this subject from a morality standpoint, I would have to approach this question differently for different types of living creatures. This could mean that the answer to the matter could change pending what creature is in question. An example of such an issue is the question to whether or not I can plausibly justify the practice of subjecting rats to these painful research experiments in a way that does not imply that it would also be permissible to subject human beings to the same painful experiments without their consent. In this paper, I will argue that it is possible to justify the painful research of rats in a way that does not justify the same treatment to human beings. This issue is important because in “The Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research,” Ringach remarks, “history shows moral boundaries to be dynamic” (Ringach 308). This means that just because it is the societal norm does not make it morally permissible, and if that were the case in this situation, thousands of people would be murdering thousands of animals everyday. I will open this paper by presenting my position on this issue. I will show how human beings are naturally separated from rats and what makes humans so unique. I will then go on to introduce a compelling criticism that you might have of my argument on how human babies factor into the equation. To conclude, I will demonstrate how that criticism of my argument fails. The answer to this question lies within the similarities and differences between human beings and rats. The most significant similarity is that both... ... middle of paper ... ...owing the researcher to experiment on him, and if he does not say this then any experimentation is a violation of his right to life. In response to the critic’s other conclusion, my argument does not imply that if a person lacks goals, does not understand the concept of a future, or does not value his future then the person loses his right to life. This implication is incorrect because my argument states a future that is valuable to him, not valued by him. The difference is that the first statement means that every human being has a future, and the fact that he does, makes it valuable to him. If he were to stop valuing his own future, that does not mean the future is no longer a valuable thing. In other words, the fact that he has a future that he can steer and set goals for is a valuable thing in and of itself, regardless of whether or not it is appreciated.

More about Is Animal Experimenting (Rats, in Particular) Right or Wrong?

Open Document