Is It Wrong To Cause Unnecessary Suffering?

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.

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

Peter Singer is defined by being the most positive influencer of all living philosopher in the world. An Australian moral philosopher, environmentalist and animal activist, most noted for his work of Animal Liberation that was published in 1975, a canonical text in animal rights/liberation theory (Singer, 2002). Singer is often found arguing the wrongfulness of what human society performs to millions of suffering animals. A vigorous activist who specializes in applied ethics and ethical issues (Singer, 2002). He firmly believes that as humans we should become just like him and think and feel the way he does. Following his way of life, we could become vegetarians and not perform any wrongfulness to animals that do not deserve to be eaten

Through the infliction of burns, wounds, and side effects, researchers examine the animal to study the healing process, and the infliction of pain to determine its effects and remedies.

Murder and abuse cases never fail to startle society. Moral codes are flouted with unmatched rigorousness by these indubitable egregious crimes. Sufferers in these cases are often people. Nonetheless, these callous obscenities should not be seen as less important when animals are the victims. Animals undergo horrendous abuse due to barbaric individuals, greed, and unnecessary lab testing.

On the topic of animal rights, Vicki Hearne and Peter Singer represent opposite ends of a belief spectrum. Singer describes, in numerous articles, that he believes animal rights should focus on if the animal is suffering, and the best option to prevent it is to limit interaction between animals and humans. Specifically, in “Speciesism and Moral Status” Singer compares the intelligence and ability of non-human animals to those with severe cognitive disabilities to establish an outrageous solution to animal belittlement. He uses logos (the appeal to reason) and ethos (the appeal to ethics), to question the current rights in place to appeal to other scholars. Nevertheless, his approach can cause an emotional disconnect to the readers; this apparent in contrast to Hearne’s pathos (the

A quick comparison to Vicki Hearne’s “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights?” to Peter Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status”, might indicate Hearne’s argument is stronger due to her strategic and effective use of emotional appeals (i.e. pathos). These appeals allow Hearne to connect quickly and easily with her audience. Hearne is also quite clever in terms of stressing her occupation as an animal trainer. However, after a swift comparison of the two articles, it is evident that Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status” offers readers a stronger and more valid argument. Both Singer and Hearne are arguing their position on animal rights and the extent of human involvement. Since Hearne’s article is primarily based on her attempt to persuade her

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.

Peter Singer, the author of Animal Liberation, states that human-to-human equality should be extended to animals because humans and animals both possess the same perception of pain. Singer says, “Nearly all the external signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species, especially the species most closely related to us - the species of mammals and birds” (Singer 11). Singer states his personal view on animal rights. Many people hold similar views, and these people believe that the issue of animal overpopulation should be addressed by means that most benefit animals. This type of view clashes with views that humans’ needs must come first. Even among thosewithin this group of people who prioritize animals, there are disputes about how to most ethically treat animals. Some oppose animal sterilization, while others believe it is a completely humane practice, again, therefore yielding no conclusive solution to the

The most common arguments against animal use testing question the morality, necessity and scientific validity of these studies. In other words, do we have the right to perform such tests, need such tests, and whether these tests provide us with any useful information?

This raises serious ethical and moral questions about the use of animal experimentation. It is a matter of serious debate as to whether the use of living breathing creatures as tools to enhance our quality of life is morally wrong. Some argue that all use of animals in medical research is wrong, as all creatures

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

The authors of this paper provided some key arguments for the reduction in the euthanized in animal experiments. On one hand, I agree with them on the issue of euthanasia to prevent pain and suffering of the animal. Some animals used in experiments do in fact reach the threshold of pain that was set before the experiment and may need to be put down to stop any more suffering. On the other hand, I don’t agree with their argument that animals should be reused to prevent killing more animals for research. Even with the process of rehabilitation, most animals undergo permanent changes that may require them to be euthanized. Rehabilitating these and putting them back through the process of experimentation will lead to a greater welfare cost for

In our world, protests occur each day on the issues of animal cruelty and human rights, but when the issues are put together which will reign over the other? The author Peter Singer of “All Animals are Equal” and “Tools for Research” presents his argument for determining when animal experiments are justified. The author starts his paper with a counter argument, questioning if one would be willing to let thousands of people die if those people could be saved by experimentation on a single animal. The answer is a unanimous no; in our culture we value human life over everything else. The author follows by asking the reader if they would be prepared to carry out their experiments on humans who are mentally retarded or orphaned babies, if that

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.