In the article "The Pain of Animals", David Suzuki explored scientific research and its history of animal testing as a means to help humanity. By using personal anecdotes, as well as stories of animal testing and captivity, David Suzuki confronted the right of humans to exploit animals for the benefit of humankind, the justifications that humans use as an excuse to exploit animals, and the inhumanity in the way that humans as a species treat other species.
The fundamental question that defined the content of the article was "What gives us the right to exploit other organisms as we see fit?" (Suzuki, 2008, p.681). Humanity had a long history of using animals in testing due to biological similarities (Suzuki, 2008, p. 680). He put a mirror to people by questioning the ways animals were treated in those scenarios, and if the methods and product were worth the suffering of animals. To do this he looked at examples of scientific studies to alleviate human illness, as well as use of animals for entertainment. By contrasting the harsh realities animals face with the rationalization of their captors, the article underlined not only humanity's unlimited capacity for cruelty but also the factors that allow it to keep on doing the same thing no matter what the truth of the matter is. The article was written for those who those who do not know about the scientific exploitation of animals as well as those who have not in the past seen the idea of captivity and scientific treatment of
Animals, whether cats in the house or lions on the savannah, reserve the right to life. The disregard for animal life has been equated to racism or sexism; acting on principles of disrespect for life and thoughts of discrimination (Animal Testing and Ethics). The continuation of animal testing and experimentation take an enormous psychological toll on humanity, leading to rationalization and flawed justification. To carry on this path would darken the mark this animal abuse is currently leaving on our humanity, one step towards yet another fault in human nature.
Moreover, Suzuki made an effective discussion by talking about animal’s life after being tested if they survive. He made readers to think and feel about the pain of animals by his emotional questions, “What gives us the right to exploit other living organisms as we see fit? How do we know that these other creatures don't feel pain or anguish just as we do? Perhaps there's no problem with fruit flies, but where do we draw the line?” (Suzuki, 1989, p.681). Suzuki’s main purpose is to convince the audience that animals feel pain and it is unethical to make animals suffer from pain for our benefits. Suzuki suggests that it is not wise to use animals for research as well as for our pleasure to the extent that results in extinction.
Over the past few decades, the impact of human behavior has had a profound effect on the rest of the world. In David Suzuki’s “The Pain of Animals”, he explores how he came to understand the results of human actions on other living creatures. Reflecting on his work in genetics, as well as personal experiences, David argues that humans act as though they are born with an inherent right to “exploit other living organisms as we see fit” (Suzuki, 1989). He does this by exploring the emotional toll humans have on animals and illustrates the effects of their use in research. I believe that animals are born with an inherent right to life and should be treated with value and respect. On the other hand, without the study of genes and biomedical research, healthcare would not have the medical advancements that it has today. Previous laws on the use of animals in research were insufficient in how researchers ought to treat their test subjects; they merely forbade cruel, deliberate harm from being inflicted (Gilbert & Kaebnick & Murray, 2012). With increased ethical policies set in place, and enforced, animal testing can continue as a beneficial tool in the advancement of healthcare.
New England Anti-Vivisection Society’s article displays the facts on how animal testing does not work. Presenting the horrendous cruelty of animal testing methods and the realities of the reliability of the experimentation, the article shows the lack of compatibility between animals and humans. Neavs’s writing shows that testing on animals does not guarantee results in humans. Neavs is reliable and useful because it cites it’s facts to various other sources. Neavs is trying to help end animal cruelty of all forms by providing information about suffering animals and telling people how to get involved or to just donate so the society itself can help the cause more. Using the examples of cruelty and instances of incompatibility between humans
“Animal Experimentation” The concept of animal testing has grown to be very controversial. The thought of experimenting on animals results in different emotions. Many people would argue that experimenting on animals is brutal and others would argue otherwise. An article by the title of “Point: Animal Testing-
Over 100 million animals are killed in U.S laboratories for experimentation and chemical drug, food and cosmetics testing. In “A change of heart” by Jeremy Rifkin focuses on telling readers, how animals have feelings, think and are really smart. He gives examples and shows evidence on how they are more like us than we imagined. How the way that animals are treated is wrong. There is no doubt that we should stop animal cruelty.
Animals are found throughout lives of humans. As companions, entertainment, test subjects and food, animals serve vital roles throughout our lives.The Animal Bill of Rights, through the Animal Legal Defense Fund, attempts to defend the basic legal rights of all animals. However, to weigh the need for such an act, one must compare the suffering of animals to the benefits such suffering gives to humankind. It’s much more important to highlight the crucial medical advances that lab animals have provided over the injustices they may suffer, but this suffering can not and should not be ignored. It is with measure that we do not enact a bill of rights for animals, however we bring new awareness of animal research and the ethical treatment of all
The experimentation of animals has been used for a multitude of years for research to advance a scientific understanding of a living organism. To this day animals are being tested on for the use of human products. In 3D-printing human skin: The end of animal testing? by Jessica Mendoza, Speculative Philosophy, the Troubled Middle, and the Ethics of Animal Experimentation by Strachan Donnelley, “Animals and Medical Science: A Vision of a New Era” by David O. Wiebers, Cruelty-free cosmetics benefit consumers as well as animals by The Sydney Morning Herald, and Technological Alternatives Can End the Experimental Use of Animals by George Dvorsky, show how Animal experimentation is redundant and needs to be diminished because there are
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
The subject of animal testing for human advantages has always been a debatable topic. It is still undecided whether the use of animals for human benefits is morally right. On the other hand it is scientists and researchers who think that animals are good testing subjects because of various reasons such as preventing harmful products or finding cures to diseases. The two essays “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs” by Tom Regan and “Proud to be Speciesist” by Stephen Rose talk about the concerns of animal rights but display the opposite viewpoints on the use of animals. Regan's argument has a more broad concept to the matter while Rose takes a deeper dive into exacts with an opinionated personal vibe. As the authors continue writing it is obvious
Cohen argues that humans may morally use animals for biomedical research, the study of biological processes and disease, because animals lack rights. He defines rights as moral claims that one human can hold against another, which are bound in both law as well as in comprehension of right and wrong. As animals lack self-conscious placement in a higher ethical order with the ability to weigh needs of self against the needs of others, they therefore lack the ability to have rights. (Cohen 1986: p. 215) To support the morality of animal research, I will show how it has led to many successful treatments of disease in humans, due to the common physiology that we share with other animals. Furthermore, I will argue that the pain caused on research
Animal testing is used frequently among the field of research to identify new cures of the modern science field to help cure disease, find cures, or simply identify variables in a theory. Yet, it is brought to question: is it morally wrong to test another living organism that is not a human being? Billions of animals lose their lives each year due to animal testing. Animals should be attributed to help enhance the fields of Psychological Research as long the experiments have a higher gain value than the level of cruelty that is imposed upon the animals that are being used for testing. Although the line between what is considered an effective research or pain caused for human financial benefit; there are two mindsets that are pointed out to continue animal research: the scientific view and the ethical view. But, most importantly to identify the purposes of a choice done by ethical egoism and contractarianism to benefit individuals financially and instead have utilitarianism content of moral norms to use on the animal research field.
A majority of humans will show immense respect towards scientists and researchers. Their education and profound knowledge are praised in advancing our health care, households and human life in general. These successful studies however, may have included some form of harmful animal suffering to achieve the objectives of human growth and development. Some may argue that animal testing is morally essential in our ever-growing society as it allows researchers to determine progressive factors in not only the human species but the animal species as well (Rollin
This paper addresses animal activists who strongly believe that animal testing is cruel and inhumane act. My audiences are already aware of the situation where tremendous amount of animals are harmed and some even killed from animal testing and experiments. Since they lean towards the side of arguments that disapproves animal testing, my purpose of writing this essay is to at least let my primary audiences to understand and accept the fundamental reasons for conducting animal testing.
For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters.