Introduction Many institutions use animal experiments to develop a new product or test the safety of medicines. Animals may be modified into suitable condition to obtain knowledge about potential human diseases and treatments. As animals including mice and rats that are distant from human share many genetic and physiological similarities with human, experimenting on them may bring enormous benefits (BBC, n.d.). Many of the experiments, however, cause pain to them or even reduce their living quality (HOPES, 2010). This brings attention to the justification of animal experiments. The moral status of animals and the benefit are highly controversial parts of the concern. Against animal experiments Most people would agree that animals have some kind of moral status. This presents a shift of view from past that animals had no moral status and respecting them was merely for protecting human property. Today, this question has evolved to how much moral status and what right animals have. (HOPES, 2010) The strongest answer to the question is that animals have the same moral status as humans do and that they deserve exactly the same treatment. This claim means that human have no right of killing and forcing animals in fulfilling their own goals and animals are no different from human. Specifically, supporters argue that animals have the capacity to enjoy or suffer life. (HOPES, 2010) They further claim that granting animals less moral is simply a prejudice or “speciesism”. Human has the tendency to consider themselves more moral simply because they belong to their own species. Belonging to particular race does not mean other species have less moral status. (HOPES, 2010) Considering the fact that the experiment exerts suffering to animals,... ... middle of paper ... ...or ability as some animals, are not considered subjects. Works Cited BBC. n.d. Animal ethics: Experimenting on animals. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/experiments_1.shtml [Accessed: 18 Nov 2013]. Harley, H. 2013. Consciousness in dolphins? A review of recent evidence. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, pp. 1--18. HOPES. 2010. Animal Research: The Ethics of Animal Experimentation. [online] Available at: http://www.stanford.edu/group/hopes/cgi-bin/wordpress/2010/07/animal-research/ [Accessed: 18 Nov 2013]. NEAVS. n.d. Alternatives to Animal Testing and Research. [online] Available at: http://www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing [Accessed: 18 Nov 2013]. Stevens, A. and Stevens, J. 2012. Animal Cognition. [online] Available at: http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/animal-cognition-96639212 [Accessed: 18 Nov 2013].
The types of experiments performed at the University of Buffalo and the University of California depicts just some of the few horrors of animal testing. According to the article, during these experimentations the eyes of monkeys were implanted with metal coils into their eye sockets in order to study movement ("Update: Animal Testing"). Often times animals are tested upon in laboratories, living in cold isolated environments. The moral aspect of the debate, is whether or not animals should be utilized and later euthanized for the purpose of human benefit, especially when only one party decides. As a resu...
Driscoll, Sally and Laura Finley. “Animal Experimentation: An Overview.”Points Of View: Animal Experimentation (2013): 1. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 6 Feb. 2014
“Animals and Research Part 4: Ethics of using animals in research.” Editorial. Seattle Post-Intelligencer 20 Apr. 2000 <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/anml4.shtml>.
Philips, Trevor. "Human Self-Interest Will Ensure That Animal Experimentation Continues." The Independent (25 Apr. 1998). Rpt. in Animal Experimentation. Ed. Cindy Mur. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.
For countless decades humans have taken it upon themselves to take defenseless innocent wild animals to test and experiment on them. Ranging from powerful drugs and lotions to chemicals, vaccines, and packing materials. The practice of using animals for testing has been a controversial subject for the past thirty years. The question is whether animal testing is morally right or wrong. An integral part of the debate, over animal testing and experiments, mainly centers on the question of an animals moral status. Most people would agree that animals have some moral status. Which is why we find it wrong to abuse pets or needlessly hurt other animals.
Beginning in ancient times, animals were experimented on out of pure curiosity, and people did not understand how different systems really worked. Today, we have an undeniable understanding of the body’s functions and metabolism, proving that this practice is becoming increasingly unreliable, expensive, and above all: cruel. For centuries, innocent animals such as rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, birds, cats, dogs, and primates have been used for man’s own selfish wants. In modernity, “an estimated 26 million animals are used and slaughtered every year due to animal research.” (“Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?”, 1). For some, animal research is the image of medical breakthroughs. For others, the mere thought brings the image of animals being locked in cages, starved, alone, and in pain. Animals’ rights are commonly ignored, and malpractice is often hidden from the public eye.Widely believed to bring medical gain, animal testing is cruel, inhumane, and costly. This practice is a flawed system that should be bypassed at all conceivable costs.
In modern society, animal experimentation has triggered a controversy; consequently, vast amount of protests have been initiated by the animal rights community. Although these organizations have successfully broadcast their concerns toward animal experimentation, its application continues to survive. Sally Driscoll and Laura Finley inform that there remain fifty million to one-hundred million animals that experience testing or experimentation throughout the world on a yearly basis. But despite opposition, animal experimentation, the use of experiments on animals in order to observe the effects an unknown substance has on living creatures, serves multiple purposes. Those particular purposes are: research of the living body, the testing of products, and the advancement of medicine.
Although not as strictly addressed, there is still a schism when it comes to the matters of experimentation involving animals. Those in opposition of it see it as being against the will of the animal, because animals have no say in the matter. However, through animal experimentation there has been vast medical advances in hospitals and veterinarians , research has led to cures for various diseases that would normally take many more years to cure, and the use of animals is highly ethical considering what could be the alternative, although there is progress being made to change these measures. This is how animal experimentation is of use to society for humans and animals.
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”(Arthur Schopenhauer)
"Animal Experimentation: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions." IDEA: International Debate Education Association - Debate Resources & Debate Tools. Web. 16 Dec. 2009. .
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Call Number: HV4711.A5751992. Morris, Richard Knowles, and Michael W. Fox, eds. On the Fifth Day, Animal Rights. and Human Ethics.
In this essay, I will discuss and define both speciesism and moral individualism in Paola Cavalieri’s book, The Animal Question. Additionally, I will provide my opinion on which is the strongest argument for speciesism and why I still disagree with it. Speciesism is the belief that humans are inherently superior to all other animals, solely based on their species membership. This widely held belief is used to justify the blatant discrimination of nonhuman animals, resulting in a lack of moral rights and the exploitation of defenseless beings. This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways.
Millions of animals are used to test consumer products, but they also become victims to experiments for medical research. In The Ethics of Animal Research (2007) both authors state that there have been many medical advances with the development of medicines and treatments as a result of research conducted on animals (para 1). These medical i...
The deployment of animals for medical research has brought heated debates from both the proponents and opponents each holding to their views in a tight manner. Those who are in support of animal research argue that it has been constituting a vital element in the advancement of medical sciences throughout the world providing insights to various diseases, which have helped in the discovery and development of various medicines that have brought an improvement in the qualify of living of people. Such discoveries have gone so deep that but for them many would have died a premature death because no cure would have been found for the diseases that they were otherwise suffering. On the other hand, animal lovers and animal right extremists hold to the view that animal experimentation is not only necessary but also Cruel. Human kind is subjecting them to such cruelties because they are helpless and even assuming such experiments do bring in benefits, the inhuman treatment meted out to them is simply not worth such benefits. They would like measures, including enactment of legislations to put an end to using animals by the name of research. This paper takes the view there are merits in either of the arguments and takes the stand a balanced approach needs to be taken on the issue so that both the medical science does not suffer, and the animal lovers are pacified, even if not totally satisfied. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The next section discusses both the sides by taking account the view of scholars and practitioners and the subsequent section concludes the paper by drawing vital points from the previous section to justify the stand taken in this paper....
Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science:Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford UP: Oxford UP, 1993.