Draft And Outline Of David Suzuki's The Pain Of Animals

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 first point of utilitarianism is important for readers to understand because upon completion of reading this work, or any work related to animals deserving equal considerations in terms of suffering, comes a question of ethics and a decision. Singer expresses the similarities between how humans treated one another and their progressions over time throughout Animal Liberation with good reasons. The

many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we have ever imagined. They feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love…” (1). This statement can also be proven through science. Just like humans, animals also have “the same types of nociceptors… A-delta and C fibers...” (Victoria Braithwaite 1). These nociceptors are used to detect pain. If animals display many of the same qualities as humans and feel pain, they should be treated more humanely.

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.

Today, the discussions about the protection of the animal’s rights have received the attention of many people, many countries in the world. A lot of actions have been made by animal right activists to influence the world. Alex Epstein and Yaron Book, both authors of the “The Evil of Animal ‘Right’,” argue animal right activists use too much violence on their action, which is considered going against the law. Then, the authors give a lot of evidence to prove testing animals are extinct, but using animals for testing gives us new vaccines which make our lives better. Without animals for testing, how can scientists find out the vaccine for diseases? Animal right groups are making many effects to Huntingdon Life Sciences.

To show the credibility of his article, he includes citation of his sources. To establish his tone, he explains the benefits and importance behind animal testing supported by facts. For example he states that, “Balanced against the sacrifices of the animals are the immense advances in medication that benefit untold millions of humans and many animals as well” (Wagner). As he proceeds in his essay, Wagner develops a connection with his audience by providing evidence that shows that not all experiments are cruel. He also addresses the opposing side of his argument.

This research would aid zookeepers in determining the necessary and effective measures that would improve the lives of their contained animals (Welty, "300 Days"). When chimpanzees are being contained in zoos, it is necessary that they receive proper care and habitat. The Chimpanzoo Project's main objective was to reveal that wild chimpanzees do not undergo behavioral changes that would be caused by being placed in a peculiar environment, therefore setting an example of how captive chimps should be treated. By enlisting the help of many people across the world to document the behaviors of chimps, Goodall demonstrated the importance of mimicking a natural environment for captive animals so as to not interrupt the normal processes of chimp's everyday lives (Welty, "300 Days"). Goodall raised awareness that the main purpose of keeping zoos was being conflicted with the way that some chimps were being carelessly treated. Animals that are placed in zoos should capture the wonder of nature, and bring the unknown actions of wildlife to the minds of people. However, when chimps' habitats in zoos are not similar to their natural environments, their actions do not reflect those that would be executed in a normal environment, defeating the purpose of containing wild animals to show their antics to curious onlookers. Goodall's initiatives inspired members of society to learn more about the needs of their chimps, in turn enabling zookeepers to maintain more suitable habitats for their chimpanzees as they become aware of how their original exhibit was harming the

(Exploring Ethics, 342). Therefore, some people trusts that animals should not have rights and should be used in research in order to increase their outlooks on finding the cures and medicines used to heal million of diseases world

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 decision to purposely cause harm to animals continues to affect the lives of hunters and those within the animal right’s movement. The rights, obligations and interests of all parties involved have to be taken into consideration when contemplating whether such treatment can be morally justified. John Elder’s article Duck Shooters Don’t See Themselves as Cruel Killers [...] (Published 27 March 2011) showcases hunter, Robert Hodder, who in his argument concentrates on the issue of pain, and the severity of it, towards animals, rather than the eradication of it all together. In this essay, I will explore the rights of animals and Hodder’s position that so clearly reflects today’s society.

Over the course of history, humans have classified various animals from companions, playmates we will love until the end of the world; to nourishment, meat we look forward to for our next meal. Be that as it may, how ever did we reconcile theses ways of loving some animals while eating or hating others? In Hal Herzog excerpt, “Animals Like Us”, using anecdotal stories Herzog tackles the reasoning behind our contradicting relationships and behaviors regarding this 'trouble middle' for different animals. In order to resolve the murkiness of the trouble middle we must reshape our ethics on why we treat certain animals differently by eliminating our misconceptions of each animal and understanding that every animal should be treated equally.

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

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.

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.

The quotation clearly describes the similarity between human and animal pain. Same is the situation involving use of rats, they also feel pain when they are being exploited for research as they exhibit similarity in structure and functions as that of humans. If humanity must suffer some disadvantage as the consequence of respecting animal rights, then that's the way it has to be. Hal Herzog states that “I analyzed several thousand Internet messages between biomedical researchers and animal rights activists as they tried—and ultimately—to find common ground” (246). The quotation describes the imbalance between scientists and animal extremists, as the later thrives to reduce animal exploitation. Some suggests that only the higher animals would be protected - those animals that are conscious, can remember, and can form intentions and plan and act for the future. Considering rats as not being higher animals, they constitute the most number of animals used in research. This rational behavior of humans will eradicate the true meaning of being humans. Thus, it is important to implement animal protection, as humans are not the only living species on Earth. Therefore, in order to stay in limit of our ethical boundary we need to reduce the number of rats and other animals used for human benefits in the field of medicine.