The Argument For Complete Abolition Of The Use Of Animals Essay

Smith, Wesley J. “The Grim Good of Animal Research.” Scientific Research, edited by Sylvia Engdahl, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints In Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010948220/OVIC?u=scschools&sid=OVIC&xide9245e81. Accessed 26 Apr. 2018. Originally published in www.firstthing.com, 18 Oct.

“It is a simple fact that many, if not most, of today’s modern medical miracles would not exist if experimental animals had not been available to medical scientists. It is equally a fact that, should we as a society decide the use of animal subjects is ethically unacceptable and therefore must be stopped, medical progress will slow to a snail’s pace. Such retardation will in itself have a huge ethical ‘price tag’ in terms of continued human and animal suffering from problems such as diabetes, cancer, degenerative cardiovascular diseases, and so forth.”

As we discover treatments for diseases such as rabies, feline leukemia, tetanus, anthrax, and much more, animals also bear the advantage of protection. In fact, humans share hundreds of diseases with animals. We also share similar organs allowing scientists to use animals as an essential model for the study of illnesses. Therefore, the work researchers perform sets a platform for an end result where both parties benefit. It can thus be concluded that those against animal research are covered by a counterintuitive notion because, without animal research, the animals whom they are fighting for would die due to a potentially curable disease. To deal with the ethical dilemma of animal research, countries like the United Kingdom have placed regulations that require the research scientists to show how and if they have considered alternative ways before they are given a license to continue with their research projects. Given these circumstances, we can conclude that the rise in animals used in research must mean that in the near future there may be major medical

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” (Mahatma Gandhi). Scientists have been using animals for biomedical research for centuries. They provide a source to get information scientists can not get without harming humans. A lot of debate is spread about whether it is good or bad. Animal experimentation is a controversial topic because it is helpful to humans, but it is also cruel and inhumane.

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.

(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

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

Debates about animal research are often polarized. On one hand, increased knowledge, medical treatments or enhanced animal production are seen to justify any harm. On the other, animals have rights (Fisher, 2014). Ethics, alongside a more informed understanding of the benefits of research and of the aims of animal rights, may in fact produce a more sophisticated common ground between both sides of the debate.

As Cohen’s argument progresses, he underlines the reasoning as to why using animals in biomedical research is morally permitted. Considering animals do not retain rights, “In conducting research on animal subjects, therefore, we do not violate their rights, because they have none to violate” (Cohen, pg.589). Likewise, Cohen depicts that we should not allow the expectation of moral equality for animals to impose on the advancement of biomedical research, due to the fact that, this form of research maximizes safety and the life span of human beings. For the reason, the benefits biomedical research provides to human beings surpasses any proposed obligation to animals. In contradiction, Singer argues experimentation on animal’s results in speciesim.

Carl Cohen, “Why Animals Have No Rights”, The case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research 315 (1986): 865-870.

An ongoing conflict among the human species is that of animal cruelty, whether it be by scientific experiments, tests, or research. I frequently wonder, do the individuals performing these atrocious tasks ask themselves if what he/she is doing is ethically correct? I believe that it is not right to treat animals in such an inhumane manner, but to treat them as our own kind, for they are clever, spirited beings. These helpless animals cannot defend themselves against abuse. In my opinion, it is morally appropriate to grant the same rights to animals as we human beings acquire and to end, or even just to minimize, animal cruelty in laboratories. Although there have been some benefits of animal testing for medical prospect, alternative

The issue of animal experimentation is a widely debated topic in the United States. A fundamental question of this debate is whether the functions of animal testing and research are morally and ethically justified. In the viewpoint of the pro-research community, animal testing is a necessary practice. They support this position by stating that humans, instinctually, prioritize their own survival above other animals thus making any use of animals justifiable (Fox 5). The supporters of animal testing believe that it is illogical for humans to place anthropocentric values in animals citing that they can not be moral equals to mankind (Fox 3, 6). The animal rights faction holds belief in different viewpoints against the testing of animals in

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.

In regards to animals, the issue of rights and whether they exist becomes a touchy subject. In the essay, “Nonhuman Animal Rights: Sorely Neglected,” author Tom Regan asserts that animals have rights based upon inherent value of experiencing subjects of a life. Regan’s argument will first be expressed, later explained, and evaluated in further detail. Lastly, that fact that Regan thinks rights are harbored under the circumstance of being an experiencing subject of a life will also be discussed in terms of the incapacitated, etc.

The topic that I am choosing to examine for my paper is about animals that are used in research and the rights they they do or do not have. The reason that I chose this particular topic is because that it is a topic that is very significant to me. I am currently going to Delaware technical Community College to become a Veterinary technician. My lifelong dream has always been to help and save animals, Any creature great or small animals used in research, mistreated, neglected and abused is not something that sits to well with me and many other animal rights activist.. When it come to the moral ethics and moral status of animals these are problematic subjects. You are going to have two very opposing sides, some people are tolerable with animals being used in animal research because they feel that these animals have no moral status, they are not autonomous, and they are not sentient, and they are here for our misuse, abuse and consumption. The first theory that I will be looking at is deontological theory of Immanuel Kant, and autonomy. Kant’s theoretical approach is that of an indirect theory. Indirect theories state that animals do not warrant our moral concern on their own, but they may warrant our concern as they relate to humans. I will also examine the direct theory approach of the Utilitarian theory in regards to animals and animal research. Animal rights has been an issue since man enslaved the first animal to do its bidding. For centuries philosophers have