The Ethics of Animal Use in Biomedical Research Essay

Every twelve months, more than 100 million creatures are executed in U.S. research facilities for chemical, medication, food, and cosmetics testing; science lessons; and interest driven experimentations (“Medical Testing on Animals Is Cruel And Unnecessary” 1). Some people are convinced that testing medicines on animals is needed so that one day, there may be

This argument: that rational beings must be considered ends in themselves, was the lifeblood of the movements of the 1970s that sought to bring oppressed groups under the umbrella of equal moral consideration. These prolonged and often violent debates revolved around demands for equality through which oppressed groups could attain their liberation. As such it is not surprising that the movement for animal liberation stems from these concerns. In fact, they are explicitly allied with them. Peter Singer’s seminal text Animal liberation is deliberately called so to evoke memories of the fortitude and determination of these earlier movements for human liberation. Singer emphasises rationality and self-consciousness of some animals as evidence

“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.”

Peter Singer has written many works in support of animal rights. In one of his greatest works Animal Liberation, Singer goes into great depths on how similar in biology animals are to human beings. Another strong point was not only the biological resemblance, but also the behavioral tendencies and traits humans and nonhuman species share. There are two major areas of focus that Singer puts emphasis on that need to be recognized for the purposes of my argument. One focus is this utilitarian approach that only the human species carry: the belief of ethical and morally good behavior should be extended to the consideration of nonhuman species. The second focus that is the basis for my argument is Singer’s argument against a huge human social construct labeled speciesism.

In Peter Singer’s article, All Animals are Equal, Singer claims that animals deserve the same equal rights and respect that the human lives get. His strongest argument is defined by all animals, human or non-human shall be defined as equal. Singer makes some very strong arguments within his article, but I feel some of his statements are humanist. As an animal lover and mother to two pets, I disagree that not all animals or living things endure the same amount. However, I do agree that animals do deserve the rights to live lives as animals should. This paper will analyze Singer’s argument in relation to the specific issue of animal equal rights. It will also include the counterarguments I have against his claims of his article.

A highly popularized and debated topic in our modern society is the promotion of animal equality or animal rights. Many people, philosophers included, have a wide range of opinions on this topic. Two of the philosophers studied in class who discussed animal rights were Peter Singer and Carl Cohen. Singer, who has the more extreme view on animal rights, believes that all animals are equal and that the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interest of others (Singer, 171). While Cohen, who’s view is more moderate than that of Singer’s, believes that animals do not have rights, stating that to have rights one must contain the ability for free moral judgment. Though, he does believe that we as

The idea that all humans are born equal has been something that has been almost installed in our minds. However, in the eyes of Peter Singer, we as humans are constantly violating our own moral code in the way we treat animals. Singer refers to this as speciesism and compares our treatment of animals to the same way sexists and racists treat those who they deem inferior. He also argues that the grounds on which they base their prejudice on are equally fragile. He illustrates this by comparing speciesists to racists. He recalls, “The racists violates the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of his own race…similarly the speciesist allows the interests of his own species to override the greater interests of members of another species” (53.) He initiates this argument by explaining how our willingness to declare all humans as equal when the opposite is fundamentally true. Singer writes, “Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellect…if the demand for equality was based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality” (51). Singer seeks to establish that our push for equality ends once the being in question is no longer human. Once he establishes this, he can quickly draw parallels between our unequal treatment of animals and humans. He evolves what initially begins as a far-fetched claim to a nuanced and

“Explain Singer's distinction between sentience and self-consciousness, and what the distinction implies for the moral status of animals. Do you believe non-human animals have the same or a different moral status to human animals? Explain the basis of your answer.”

Inconsistencies in attitudes and behaviors towards animals largely accounts for why animals are a social issue. In the Article Having Our Dogs and Eating Them Too: Why Animals Are a Social Issue by James A. Serpell various excerpts are presented in order to represent topics such as the reasons behind animal beliefs and their uses, aspects of the “benefits” animals present, and views of the putative relationship between animal abuse and interpersonal violence. Both Internal and external factors affecting how people use animals and their beliefs regarding human-animal relationships are presented in the article. Internal factors include things such as human superiority and the mental capacity of animals. External factors include group membership

Speciesism is an undeniable prejudice focused on by the likes of Peter Singer and Shelly Kagan. The general accepted definition of speciesism is the assumption of superiority to humans which leads to the exploitation of animals. Singer hones in on the idea of speciesism and uses it to describe giving preference to our own species over another, in the absence of morally relevant differences.

In Stanley Benn’s “Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests”, it is explained that animals and human imbeciles are distinguished not because of fundamental inequality, but solely on the basis that the two subjects are of different species. In regard to animals’ moral rights and the infringement of those rights due to the practice of speciesism, Singer employs a utilitarian style of argument to defend animals’ moral rights; in short, the interests of each being which is involved should be taken into consideration and said interests should be given the same weight as that of another being. Speciesism is morally wrong because it attempts to assign undeserved weight to the interests of beings of separate species, solely based off the difference of species. Naturally, or rather unnaturally, human beings have always awarded themselves the utmost importance due to the idea of human dignity, as in humans occupy the central spot within any earthly ranking. Logically, Singer argues that the practice of speciesism is wrong because the conditions in which it exists are synonymous to the conditions which facilitate racism and sexism, before they had been recognized as

Peter Singer’s argues that we should take a utilitarian viewpoint on how people should treat animals. He sees that animals can, in some cases, be smarter than humans and should therefore have some rights in how the animals should be treated. His argument holds this general viewpoint, “..we [should] extend to other species the basic

Using animals in research and to test the safety of products has been a topic of heated debate for decades. According to data collected by F. Barbara Orlans for her book, In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation, sixty percent of all animals used in testing are used in biomedical research and product-safety testing (62). People have different feelings for animals; many look upon animals as companions while others view animals as a means for advancing medical techniques or furthering experimental research. However individuals perceive animals, the fact remains that animals are being exploited by research facilities and cosmetics

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.

The author formulates a three-part argument in order to make his case and to overcome claims regarding speciesism. The term ‘speciesism’ can be defined as the discrimination against or exploitation of animals based on the assumption of human superiority. Singer makes three claims against it to reveal his thesis on how animals deserve equal rights as humans. Firstly, Singer argues that the concept of equality does not necessitate for animals to have equal rights as humans. He believes that we should comply to the basic principle of equality, where the interests of animals should be equally considered to the liking of any other beings, including humans. Secondly, in opposition to animal rights being a factual idea, Singer contends that it is a moral