While there are numerous pros and cons of animal testing, the ethical aspect overshadows both of them, which means that emotion may be the ultimate determining factor in whether a person believes the benefits of animal testing outweigh the problems associated with the practice. As we do not own them, we have no right to torture them because there are many safer and much more reliable alternatives that would eliminate the pain and suffering the animals go through.
Animal’s lives are put on the line due to the actions of human beings. Animals do not need rights to be protected. Human beings need to learn to behave morally, rather than on the act of animal rights, although the absence of cruelty does not make an act morally good. (Lewis) As stated above, “the absence of cruelty does not make an act morally good”, is a phrase that allows your brain to soar with ideas and emotions. It makes you think and wonder not only for the ethical treatment of animals but for the morally correct human being.
So how possibly can we say that we have achieved the demanded moral equality if there is not equal treatment.... ... middle of paper ... ... preform the same experiments on orphaned disabled human beings. Aspect that takes us back to Singer’s moral equality demand through the principle of moral consideration in experimenting with animals; which cannot be achieved if there is no equal treatment, yet his argument assures that equal consideration it does not entail equal treatment. Finally, I can say that Singer’s argument definitely helps to set the standard of a moral status for all non-human animals. However, the way this interests are meant to be considered without entailing equal treatment represent a problematic ethical position since we are not willing to grant same considerations to humans in similar of conditions to non-human animals. Moral equality cannot be achieved without equal treatment specially in animal testing since we are not willing to so the same humans, regardless of their condition.
Third, both human and nonhuman animals have the capacity to suffer. The conclusion Singer comes to is that we must give equal moral consideration to both human and nonhuman animals. Does animal testing increase happiness and reduce suffering? Most often, the answer is no. So often it would be unethical.
According to In Defense of Animals (IDA) Not only is animal testing inhumane but sometimes it is also inherently inaccurate (“Cosmetic”). IDA is an organization in U.S. that defense against animal cruelty. However, in many cases, the facts of the research are overlooked (“About”). Although many people believe that animal research is morally wrong, animals should continue to be used for scientific research because it is, as of now, the most effective way to conduct scientific research other than using human bodies to develop drugs or perform many different so... ... middle of paper ... ...duce the use of animals for scientific research. In the meantime, animals should continue to be used for scientific research only when there are no other alternatives.
Nowadays, with the modern technology, it would be really easy to find alternative procedures to find a cure for a certain disease or to test if a certain cosmetic product is safe. Also, it would be easier to find an alternative way to test beauty products instead of making animals blind. Even though it is a fact that experimenting with the help of the advanced technology with no animals involved is cheaper than torturing animals, animal testing is still on-going. This is one of the many reasons why animal testing should be banned and scientists should intensively search for alternatives where no living being will be harmed or killed. Thirdly, animal testing is unnecessary and unreliable because animal organisms are not the same as human ones.
Regan explains that disregarding animals as being capable of experiencing pain is morally wrong in itself, as is the indirect duty views (1989). Secondly, Regan introduces a second view, known as contractarianism. Although he suggests many flaws in this view, he also agrees that it somewhat supports his view of inherent value. This particular view identifies that since humans have the capability of understanding rules, they are capable of accepting and practising moral doings, and avoiding immoral acts. Thus, humans beings have every right to be treated with respect.
Another Look at Animal Testing When it comes to animal testing, one of the first thing most people think of, is that animals are used simply for bettering and improving cosmetics. Many would argue that using helpless animals for tests without a huge benefit to society is not fair, and their innocent lives are worth more. However, animal testing is actually crucial and beneficial for society. Animal testing may be cruel, nevertheless the animals allow the medical practices to advance, the military to attain knowledge and the population of both human and animal is not effected in anyway therefore, animal research should continue. The first and important point that needs to be understood is that medicine is one of the most significant necessities in today’s society.
Through the reduction and expulsion of such testing, researchers will save extreme amounts of time in the process of experimentation. Society too, will be benefitted, in that people will have an easier conscience knowing that animals are not being tortured for the sake of knowledge, when there are numerous alternative, more valid test options. In conclusion, though at first glance, animal testing is seen as beneficial to humans, it does not accomplish more positive than negative outcomes, therefore, animal testing should never again be used.
However, scientists should try to prevent as much suffering as possible. Likewise, it would be a good idea to prohibit unnecessary testing and experimentation, especially with the recent development of many alternatives. Despite mounting controversy, many people still find animal experimentation to be a moral and correct practice. A widely accepted thought of some philosophers is that animals are not morally equal to us; therefore, we do not have to treat them as such (Fox, 3). Furthermore, according to Michael Allen Fox, author of The Case for Animal Experimentation, ?animals fail to meet the conditions specified for full membership in the moral community and likewise fail to... ... middle of paper ... ...on, this issue will be able to be solved and a general understanding and agreement can arise.