Essay on Animal Experimentation and Research

Although animal experimentation has been around for centuries, the ethical revival of realization on the moral status of animals began in the 1970’s. This problem was a few among many that had been quietly hidden for years until the 1970’s.

There are problems with both Tom Regan’s and Carl Cohen’s conceptions of the status of animals in society, but, overall, Regan’s is more consistent and applicable to all situations. Cohen also establishes a double standard regarding the definition of a “moral agent,” consequently weakening his argument for the use of biomedical testing on animals. Although I disagree with many of Regan’s ideas about the value of animals, I will not address these points in this paper. I will instead argue for Regan’s position and, in doing so, prove that his argument is more valid than Cohen’s.

Throughout my paper, I felt as though I was able to give a solid and fair representation of the opposing viewpoint on issue of animal testing. However, it was challenging because I strongly oppose animal testing.

People often use animals for a lot of experiments even though most people think that is it wrong. People make up countless excuses to why it’s okay to do this. But it is not okay. Animal researchers and such agree with my opinion that using animals for tests that we as humans would never want to do, is bad and very hypocritical, yet unfortunately there are just as many scientists who say that it is completely fine and that there isn’t really much harm brought to the animals. Mind you, these scientists have apparently never owned a beloved pet close to their heart. The two essays, "Animal Rights, Human Wrongs" by Tom Regan and "Proud to be Speciesist" by Stephen Rose, talk about the issue of animal rights, but are written on completely opposing

When discussing the issues faced from an ethical standpoint of animal rights it is important to consider the benefits animals bring to people and then question what rights animals are entitled to due to this (Fisher). Taking that into account, one must ask if giving them rights could possibly overstep on human rights and would animals even be able to enjoy rights (Fisher). It is often debated that the benefits and knowledge through experimentation of animals have led to life-saving advancements in the field of science and medicine (Fisher). The other side of the debate argues that even if these past benefits are justified, these type of experiments are no longer necessary and it is deemed unacceptable that wrongful treatment of animals is done for this purpose (Fisher). When it comes to the question of

For thousands of years animals have been used as research subjects, but with the advancement of science and society, animal experimentation has morphed into a controversial bioethics topic. Animal experimentation is the use of animals in scientific research. This experimentation ranges from testing pharmaceuticals on rats to measuring the elasticity of tendons in rabbits to implanting mechanical devices in calves. And while the FDA has dozens of guidelines to keep animal testing as ethical as possible, a strong opposition to animal research (particularly mammalian research) still exists.

The discretion between animal versus human equality has been a controversial subject for many years. Philosophers and activists have pushed this matter into debate among the general society in our culture. What exactly is moral equality for animals? Some say it is equal rights to animals, and others say it is equal consideration of the animal. To understand the scope of equality based on rights, one must unfold the determination of a right in itself. Carl Cohen argues that animals have no rights, because they do not have the ability to know what a right is, but should never be treated inhumanely (Cohen 339). I will argue that Cohen’s view on animal rights is valid and sound, because animals are of instinct nature and do not perceive in according to human perception. Also, the opposite view would have detrimental effects on our population, economy, and natural habitat. Nevertheless, animals have the ability to feel pain and that aspect, certainly, for the sake of our morality, cannot be ignored.

Animals suffer just as people do. In 2009 animal experimentation was the cause of over 1.13 million animals, excluding small rodents, suffering in U.S. Laboratories (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service). Animal experimentation is unethical, unnecessary and expensive; alternative methods of testing should be utilized.

Carl Cohen defines a right, as “a right, properly understood, is a claim, or potential claim, that one party may exercise against another” (Cohen, pg. 588). The question at hand now is, in accordance with this definition of a right, do animals qualify to possess rights? Cohen conveys animals lack the ability to exercise their rights against another; thus disqualifying them from possessing them; additionally, he argues in order to claim rights, you must be able to make moral claims, which animals do not have the capacity to accomplish; hence, using animals for medical advancement research is morally permissible. Cohen prominently discusses animal’s failure to draw moral conclusions to construct his argument against animal rights.

The essence of the issues is if animals are being subjected to medical research against their will; is liable to say that we don’t place a high value on living things that are outside our human race? Subjecting animals to experiments that we would not consider ethically feasible to apply to humans. There are limitations that are placed legally to protect humanity. When considering animals for experimentation, there are no legal guidelines that restrict scientists from harming them. Ascribing animals to a lower moral status because of their lack of intelligence, communication skills, and human relations; taking advantage of them are quite easy. “According to the “Moral Theory of Animals, “there are two types of approaches that support this idea. One approach starts from the position that the interests of animals, particularly in avoiding suffering, should be taken into account when judging whether it is acceptable to use them for medical purposes that benefit human beings. The second approach argues that animals, like human beings, have rights that must be respected when considering their use for such purposes.” (Stanford

Does everyone remember their very first animal? Remember the puppy’s sweet and perfect eyes, the kitten’s soft and comforting “meow”, or perhaps even a hamster and their playful and enthusiastic personality? These loving, innocent, precious animals are used daily on animal experimentation. With each and every chemical-related product produced, experimentation is required before being released into stores; unfortunately, these tests are typically performed on blameless animals. However, just because testing of a particular product on an animal results positive, does that undoubtedly mean the results will be equivalent for humans? For instance, cigarette smoking was once considered “safe” because types of cancer associated with smoking are

Every year, millions of animals suffer through painful and unnecessary tests. Animals in laboratories all over the world live lives of deprivation, pain, isolation, and torture. Even though vast studies show that animal experimentation often lacks validity, leading to harmful human reactions, we still continue to use this method of experimentation, while many other less-expensive and more beneficial alternatives exist. Going beyond the issue of animal experimentation being morally wrong, this form of research is also hindering medical progress. Although the use of animals in laboratories is said to be necessary for the welfare and health of humans, people mistakenly believe that this immoral and unscientific method of experimentation is

I will argue that Utilitarianism is a reasonable ethical theory to demonstrate we have a duty to accord moral consideration to sentient beings equally, in this case non-human animals. I will illustrate under Utilitarian criteria, that non-human animals are indeed sentient and that it is enough to count for moral standing. I will defend my argument in examples of practices commonly used in treating animals a resource, such as for food and in laboratory experiments. This will prove that any action that fails to treat animals as a being with moral standing violates an animal’s right, and therefore is morally impermissible.

Animal experimentation by scientists can be cruel and unjust, but at the same time it can provide long term benefits for humanity. Animals used in research and experiments have been going on for 2,000 years and keep is going strong. It is a widely debated about topic all over the world. Some say it is inhuman while others say it’s for the good of human kind. There are many different reasons why people perform experiments and why others total disagree with it.

Animals should be used for research and Experimentation because if the animals get sick or show any signs of acting abnormal then the scientists know it isn’t safe for humans to use. Animal research has played a big role in nearly every medical breakthrough over the last decade. Animals have the same organ system that perform the same task, which helps determine if what is being tested is safe for humans to use. Most of the medicines animals use the same medicine as humans like antibiotics, pain killers, and many more this helps to see if the medicine cures the animals without any harmful consequences then it would be safe and useful for humans to use.