How ethical and moral can experimenting with animals be? I am going to discuss the views of these issues concerning the ethics that goes along with experimenting with animals in this passage. Firstly, animals may be subject to experimentation or be modified into conditions useful for gaining knowledge about human diseases or for testing human potential treatments. For example, it was discovered long ago that rats have similar genetic build-up and the identical systems as human being, so rats have been used along for experimentation. According to the animal research: the ethics of animal experimentation that was published in July the sixtieth 2010,some people argue that experimentation with animals should end because it is wrong to treat animals merely as tools for further knowledge while others ague that animal are better target as opposed to using human beings.
Animal experimentation is very serious. Animals are tested on because they are said to replicate almost identically and closely to humans. Soe animals have many biological similarities to humans that make them good models for specific diseases, such as monkeys, they are good for testing the polio vaccine because they are biologically similar to humans. Law requires animal testing, but people are trying to make animal testing optional instead. Currently, scientists are working on ways to substitute animal testing, such as using synthetic skin or human cell cultures.
Some people say that we should test on animals to see if any products could harm us. Some products can harm us like makeup and we could see what is wrong with it. Some shampoos are harmful to us so we could see what chemicals are harming us (ProQuest). Although those are some good reasons to keep testing on animals they still do
This appeal to the ethical(ethos), emotional(pathos), and logical(logos) senses of the audience to expose the evils of animal cruelty and convey to the audience that animals are in need of help. One way the "Sarah McLachlan Animal Cruelty" shows the organization's credibility is by using a celebrity, Sarah McLachlan as their spokesperson. She is a highly recognizable person and her popularity is a tool to influence to other people to consider the benefits of donating. Sarah McLachlan
All of this happens in the hands of humans who think or claim that they are doing this for an extensive and advanced health care. Scientists have been using animals as a way to test medicines centuries ago, and till now this process is used. This essay will argue about animal testing. People encourage animal testing because they assume that animal testing contributes to improving medicines and taking them to an advanced level . However, animal testing is unpredictable.
There is different pros for animal testing including helping researchers to find drugs and treatments, help ensure safety of drugs, there are no other testing alternatives, and it provides an opportunity to examine a complete life cycle. “The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and many more” (Murnaghan). “Another important aspect to note is that animal testing helps to ensure the safety of drugs and many other substances humans use or are exposed to regularly. Drugs in particular can carry significant dangers with their
Utilitarianism often assesses the consequences of the action to be undertaken and weighs the pros and cons of the outcome. If it is going to yield the greatest outcome and be of benefit to society, then, why not undertake the action? For example, shooting a pack of dogs that have been eating humans and animals (sheep, goats, chickens). This will result in a greater benefit to society; since, Human resources will be saved as well as animals reared for domestic and commercial purposes being preserved. This principle thought me a great deal.
The probable reason for the prevalence of monogenic variants in domestic animals, in contrast to their relatively monomorphic wild relatives, is in all likelihood to be found in the effect humans have exerted upon the species in question. Not only has the protective environment provided by humans relaxed selective pressure on the animals through increased survival of individuals with unusual characteristics, our fascination with the unusual has also led to selective propagation and dissemination of novel phenotypic traits in domestic
This kind of experiment has been conducted long time ago by some scientists such as Aristoteles, Herophilus, and Erasistratus which performed the experiments to discover the functions of living organisms and is used until now. Chimpanzees, mice, dogs, and fish are some animals which is frequently used in the experiment. Many of this experiments (which was conducted on animals) contributed to life-saving cures and treatments such as the discovery of insulin, polio vaccine, etc. However, animal testing for medication also drew controversy and debate. Some people, especially the Animal Rights Group, consider that this kind of experiment is cruel and inhumane therefore it has to be banned.
I will begin with a general discussion about Peter Singer’s core idea of speciesism followed by the counter anthropocentrism argument, and conclusions based on real world examples that exhibit human’s morally sound treatment of animals currently. Based on utilitarian ideology, Peter Singer rationalizes that to exclude non-human animals would be grounds for calling someone a speciest: Speciesism is along the same rationality as racism where one would consider their own species to be more significant or better than any other. Singer accuses humanity of thinking this way if animals’