Essays academic service

A controversial argument in favor of animal research

  • Many people who had the disease, quickly died due to complications;
  • It is only unethical to damage the interests of one's own species;
  • As I stated in my opening statements, we live in a society today that values human life over the lives of animals;
  • Under the IACUC scientists are required to administer pain medication if the animal is experiencing pain;
  • No Many animals are used for experiments and then killed;
  • More funding should be put into developing alternatives to experiments using animals.

Is it wrong to believe that animals have rights? This is because rights require that an individual be capable of responsibility. Animals cannot make moral claims so cannot claim rights Carl Cohen. Notwithstanding all such complications, this much is clear about rights in general: Rights arise, and can be intelligibly defended, only among beings who actually do, or can, make moral claims against one another.

  • I noticed you avoided my question, so I will rewrite it to give you a second chance to answer;
  • Which of those drugs should we give to some healthy young human volunteers as the first dose to humans all other things being equal?

Whatever else rights may be, therefore, they are necessarily human; their possessors are persons, human beings. The problem with this argument is that it fails to see rights as a thing that must be shared among a group of creatures, not something that is extended on an individual basis. Therefore, the question is not whether some humans are incapable of having rights, but rather whether human kind, as a species, is capable of having rights. Non-human animals, conversely, as a class of organisms, are not capable of holding rights.

Animal rights reduce humans to mere animals, not made in God's image David R. Carlin, professor of philosophy and sociology at the Community College of Rhode Island - "By arguing that animals are equal to humans and thus deserve the same legal protection, animal rights proponents reduce human beings to nothing more than biological entities, on par with animals. Animal rights advocates' view of humanity negates fundamental Christian, Platonic, and Stoic claims that man was created in the image and likeness of God.

Humans are clearly a controversial argument in favor of animal research to animals. Granting animals legal rights would be dangerous and degrading to humans. For instance, it makes it more difficult for a human to defend themselves or their crops or livestock against threatening animals.

Protecting animals from suffering by humans is a matter of animal welfare not rights. Many supposed animal rights activists claim that they desire to see animals have a right against suffering at the hands of humans. This might be a good idea, but it is false to claim that it is a "right". Such an idea can only be classified within the realm of animal welfare. The main reason is that it is only something that is practiced by humans unto animals, and can never be claimed or defended by animals out of their own a controversial argument in favor of animal research.

In addition, the idea only restricts humans against inflicting suffering on animals, but does restrict animals from inflicting suffering on other animals not even animals within their own species. Because it is a one-way relationship in this sense from human-kind onto individual animalsit can only be seen as welfare, not a right that an animal might be able to carry in all their relationships with other creatures. Humans have an evolutionary right to uphold self-interests by testing animals.

Humans are creatures of evolution. In evolution, the natural order is to uphold the self-interests of the individual and the species. Therefore, exploiting other animals to advance human self-interests is consistent with the natural order of evolution, and thus ethical. It is only unethical to damage the interests of one's own species. It is more humane to perform tests on animals than on humans. Testing substances on humans without being aware of the potential dangers would be more unethical than testing animals.

And, yet, we must perform tests on animals or on humans to advance life-saving medicines. Given a choice between testing humans and animals, it is better to choose to test animals.

Helium - "Animal testing generally occurs as a result of developing a cost-benefit model. Basically, if the benefit of the research to humans looks high, then it is seen as being worth the costs to animals. For instance it is seen that if animal research is likely to save the lives of many humans that it is worthwhile. However, it can be argued that all sentient beings have the same rights, and that costs to animals are as important as costs to humans.

There is no moral basis for elevating the interests of one species over another this is specieism. Many opponents of animal rights and supporters of testing cite the fact that animals kill each other without public outcry, and ask, why humans should be held to a higher standard? The answer is that humans have the capacity to make the choice to inflict pain on animals.

Experimenting on animals

Animals, having no free will, so do not have this same ability to choose. Therefore, if we determine that it is morally ethical to do no harm to animals, since we have the choice, it is our unique responsibility to do no harm.

Killing animals should be viewed as equivalent to killing humans Leonardo Da Vinci - "The time will come when people such as I will look upon the murder of other animals as they no look upon the murder of human beings. In particular, some writers indicate that there is infrequent eye-contact between wild animals and humans, and this has damaged our ability to sympathize with their likeness to us, making it easier wrongly for us to kill them and exploit them.

Humans must respect animal rights even if animals can't reciprocate Tom Regan, an American animal right philosopher. Retrieved May 6th, 2008 - "6. Animals don't respect our rights. Therefore, humans have no obligation to respect their rights either. There are many situations in which an individual who has rights is unable to respect the rights of others.

  1. There are many warning signs and side effects on almost every drug out there, so testing on animals doesn't take all of the negative effects away.
  2. You made a comment that there many drugs that have warning signs and side effects, and that testing on animals doesn't rid the medication of the negative side effects. Which is very true but who are we to say that we are more important than other living animals?
  3. The use of animals in scientific research has long been the subject of heated debate.
  4. You stated that, "We live in a society that values human life over the lives of animals". Con Finding the cure You seem to be informing me on a lot of information on diabetes but fail to elaborating on how exactly animal testing was able to find the treatment for the disease and the side effects from it.
  5. Many animals replicate the human body pretty well, and through this they are able to see how the drug will react if it is placed into a human host.

This is true of infants, young children, and mentally enfeebled and deranged human beings. In their case we do not say that it is perfectly all right to treat them disrespectfully because they do not honor our rights.

On the contrary, we recognize that we have a duty to treat them with respect, even though they have no duty to treat us in the same way.

Animal Testing

Animal rights can be assigned according to animal psychology Jeremy Bentham - While critics question where the line would be drawn, fearing that animal rights activists would grant rights to single cell organisms, the general consensus in the animal rights community is that rights should be conferred only to animals that can suffer.

This is a psychological distinction that is possible to make in acceptable terms. And, the main right being granted is the right to avoid suffering at the hands of humans. Animal testing wrongly involves sentient, human-like creatures Randy Fairchild.

Debate: Animal testing

Helium - "Though we perform testing on animals, and even eat the ones with less fur, we are not cannibals; we do not torture our own. A cow has approximately 90 percent of its genes in common with humans.

  • However, we do have some advance technology now, that is how scientist are able to experiment with cell culture and create human tissue;
  • And another philosopher suggests that it would anyway be more effective to research on normal human beings;
  • Other alternatives not involving animal testing are also cheaper to do aswell;
  • However, whether or not scientist follow these regulations is a completely different debate all together.

Those genes code for the same proteins, the same nerve tissue, the same basic emotions and pain, that humans can feel. Monkeys have 97 percent of their genes in common with humans, and share even more striking physical, mental and emotional similarities. The more helpless the creature, the more that it is entitled to protection by man from the cruelty of man.

Magel, Professor and Animal rights activist.