Justifying the Killing of Animals for Research
Works Cited Missing
Can killing animals for medical research, cosmetics, food and sport be
justifiable? For what reason can they be killed or should they not be
killed at all. Not killing animals at all would lead to overgrowth in
population which could cause damage to the environment. Experimenting
on animals for cosmetics is not needed because if there were no beauty
products being sold then humans would like each other for the way they
naturally are. Then comes using animals for sport. Torturing innocent
animals for entertainment. What pleasure does anyone get from watching
animals killing each other?
I believe that using animals for food is the only reason for killing
animals. Some people may argue that meat is not needed in a balanced
diet and alternatives of vegetables, fruits, pulses and dairy produce
can be consumed for protein instead, but we have canine teeth. We are
suited to eating meat like other carnivorous and omnivorous predators.
Meat is also the best source of protein and iron which are used alot
in the body. With vegetables, fruit, and dairy produce alot must be
eaten to achieve the same amount of protein and iron consumed with a
smaller amount of meat. Eating too much vegetables or anything becomes
hazardous to the body therefore eating meat could prevent this problem
and also leave more room in a diet for more food. Understanding this
concept can help us to make use of our natural features and kill
animals for justifiable reasons. OK, but what is meant by justifiable
reasons?
In Islam there are a very few justifiable reasons as animals are
considered as the creation of Allah and so must be treated equally
with all other living creatures created by Allah. Some justifiable
reasons are; hunting for food and if there is no other course of
action, testing on animals for medical purposes although it is not
encouraged by most muslims. 'Whoever kills anything bigger than a
sparrow without a just cause, Allah will hold him accountable for it.
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.
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.
Opposing Views on Animal Experimentation Animal experimentation sends a different message to everyone. The two sides are made of those who think animal testing is beneficial for life and those who think it is unethical and wrong. Those who find these tests to be beneficial are consist of researchers, scientists, and other observers. People and groups who perceive these tests to be cruel and unethical, consist of animal rights activists and organizations that fight for animals rights, such as PETA and ASPCA. Though there are many differences between the two sides, there are also a few similarities.
Every year approximately 100 million animals are killed as a part of scientific research in the United States alone. Animal testing is a highly controversial practice in the modern world. There are records of animals being used in biological and medicinal research as far back as 384 BCE with the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Many people believe animal testing is unethical as it is bringing harm to animals in order to benefit humans. Ever since the beginning of this practice, animal testing has been used for a variety of purposes, all of which are inhumane and unethical.
The morals of a modern society entails protections for all species of life. Humans do not have the nature to not inflict harm on innocent animals around the world.Animal research is unjust and neglectful to species in every animal kingdom.The animal kingdom has been disturbed since men step foot on this earth. Some people are so selfish that the only thing that look over is about their own selves and not other humans or living things in this world. Animal rights is a big thing to some people and to others it not this paper talks about how it's cruel to research on animals, how research doesn't improve health,and how it's not regulated.
Animal testing has been a highly debated topic in recent years. There are many people who have finally started to speak their minds and tell how they feel about testing on animals. But just as there are those who oppose animal testing, there are those who fully support it. A majority of people who do not support animal testing provide valid facts and information for why it is not needed. Some of the facts that they provide revolve around the conditions that the animals have to endure in the testing labs. The Animal Welfare Act lays out rules about how animals are allowed to be tortured, beaten, maimed, and all sorts of other things as long as they get pain relief. Those who oppose animal testing also provide facts that show how unreliable the
Facilities that use animals for teaching, experimentations, surgery or testing purposes are known as research facilities. Currently, there are twelve animal research facilities in the state of Alabama ("General Information on Animal Research"). There are many different reasons why animals are used for research. Animals are used to test the products used in cosmetics, for biomedical research, for military defense and food production. Many people including the general public, scientists and government officials do not necessarily agree to the terms and conditions to which these animals are used for testing
Most of the medications that we in market today have been tested and proven effective for animals before prescribing them to human beings. However, would it feel good to know that every year, hundreds of thousands of animals are captured from the wild and die just because of these said experiments? For many years now, scientists have been using animals for their laboratory experiments to produce new medicines. Although scientists have been using this process for many decades in the field of medicine, it is still a controversial issue for those who are pro animal experimentation and against animal experimentation. Both sides have been arguing about the necessity of these procedures of the medical field. Carl Cohen, a vocal animal experimentation supporter states, “Experiments on animals are necessary in order to safeguard and improve human health and well-being” (Gaughen 1). On the other hand, here are some reasons why those who are against animal experimentation say that it should be banned: 1) scientists use endangered species; 2) non-human primates and other animals are poor subjects for experimentation; and 3) there are other alternatives to testing on animals for the production of new medicines. Most of those who are pro animal experimentation see only one side of the argument and do not consider these facts. Facts about animal experimentation show that it should be banned and should not be in the field of medicine anymore.
The argument for animal testing is that it yields pertinent information that provides human health benefits. People are under the misconception that animal experiments help humans because experimenters and universities exaggerate the potential of animal experiments to lead to new cures because of the role they’ve played in past medical advances (Animal Rights, 2015). Animal experimentation doesn’t persist because it’s the best method, it persists because of personal bias and tradition.
Have you ever known of someone, or had a loved one with a life threatening disease? Have you ever known anyone still surviving with it, or even beating their disease? If you can't think of anyone, just imagine it. Where do you think a lot of the information and resources came from to help gain more knowledge of that disease? How do you think scientists and doctors figured out how to help it?...Or maybe even cure it? Thats right, animals. How would you feel if we didn't have that knowledge, and hadn't started animal testing? In some cases, that loved would no longer have been here anymore. Animal testing has affected research in a positive way, even more than you may know. Although some companies and organizations may not follow the set laws
Each year, several million rabbits, mice, and rats, as well as other laboratory animals, are slated to die over the next decade in order to advance the knowledge of science (Coghlan, 2002). Many people have come to view this use of animals as unethical, while others argue that animal testing is the only truly adequate way to test the safety of new products and medicines. In addition to taking the philosophical high ground, examination of why researchers should consider alternatives to animal testing in laboratories show that the arguments against this practice are persuasive and backed up with empirical research. These arguments state that (1) animal testing is often simply an entrenched procedure, which is continued due to tradition and law,
As the medical community works tirelessly to find cures for some of the world’s most deadly diseases, the use of new technology has propelled them to life-saving discoveries, allowing research and testing without actual test subjects. These cures come in the form of medications and treatments that can take years if not decades of development simply to get them ready to be tested. While some of this research is done without any test subjects, many researchers still employ a method that has been used for centuries: testing on animals. The ethics of this method has been the subject of controversy for almost as long as its use and has been a catalyst for discussion, both sides believing themselves to be right.
Animal testing kills a total amount of 19,500,000 animals per year. In recent discussions of animal testing a controversial issue has been whether companies should stop testing products and medicine on animals. On the one hand, some argue that animal testing is useful for helping out people in need. From this perspective, animals have made it easy for scientist to find treatments for sicknesses. On the other hand, however, others argue that the results scientist get from products aren’t the same results they would get from human beings. For example, a statement that supports this would be, “dozens of treatments for strokes have been developed in primates but all of them have failed in humans and harmed people in clinical trials”. According
Animal testing is the method and process of utilizing animals for experimentation to curing diseases, remedies, testing of products before human use or consumption. Animal testing has been taking place for many centuries. Test subjects range from felines, canines, monkeys, birds, rats, mice, pigs and so on. Experimentation and testing has helped create many breakthroughs in medical discoveries and has helped save thousands of human lives. Although, testing on animals has also caused suffering, pain, and in many cases has killed them in the process. This topic still causes disputes today between scientists and animal rights advocates debating whether or not it’s beneficial to finding cures for disease, testing product before human use, or to not do it at all and protect the animals. While many would concur that animal cruelty must cease, there are numerous arguments how to best tackle the quandary and whether what is being done, or suggested, is of any real advantage.
It has long been debated as to whether it is ethical to use animals for experimentation. When considering whether animal research is ethically acceptable or not two main concerns must be raised. The first issue is whether it is absolutely necessary to use animals in order to acquire information that may contribute to the improvement of people’s health and well-being. The second issue is whether the use of animals is defendable on a moral ground.