Animals are or needed for testing in order to keep humans out of harm's way. Using animals prevents people from dying and could save more depending on the medicine being tested. Animals must be used in cases when ethical considerations prevent the use of human subjects. When testing medicines for potential toxicity, the lives of human volunteers should not be put in
Studies done by Maneesha Deckha a professor at the University of Victoria affirms, “Many of us who live with non-human animals would count our non-human companions as members of our families, even as our kin. Yet the law’s definition of family, however much it has shifted towards the inclusion of non-normative relationships, still excludes non-humans and even commodifies them as chattels. For this, and a multitude of other reasons, animals merit better legal recognition”. Which she then reasons why ethically animals should not be given equality due to it being absurd. Examining each animal’s capacity to reason, suffer, emote, use language, make tools, or exhibit some other trait presumed to define what it means to be human is irrational.
Furthermore, while critics argue that laws have been issued which protect the physical and mental health of animals used as test subjects, the Animal Welfare Act is only US law that governs the use of laboratory animals. For example, the People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals (PETA) wrote an article regarding the Animal Welfare Act and its inefficiency in protecting lab animals. The article explained that no experiment is prohibited, no matter how grievous or petty; that painkillers are never required; and when alternatives to animal test subjects are feasible, federal law does not require their use. This alludes to the fact that the only law attempting is allowing laboratory animals to be tortured. They can be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged.
This information will help me talk about the other side of my argument. It 's good to touch base
She erroneously concluded that the biblical concept was meant to encompass all animal rights and humans’ treatment of them. One reason why Christine Stevens’ conclusion is faulty is because, if the Golden Rule did apply to animals, it would prohibit us from clothing ourselves with their skins, using them as a source of food, and using them as a source of profit. It would be a sin to use a human being for any of these things, but it is the norm for animals. In the
In his book Practical Ethics, Peter Singer defends a pro-animal argument. The goal of the argument is not to lower the status of humans, but to elevate the status of animals. He compares the belief that humans should always take precedence over issues about animals to the prejudice of slave owners against their slaves. He states that it is easy to look back and criticize the prejudices of the people who lived back then, but it is much harder to criticize ourselves, our beliefs, and whatever prejudices we may hold and actually try to change them.
As long as their suffering can be minimized “where possible”, they can be used and then disposed of in scientific projects of “merit”. The Code uses a lot of words, such as “necessary”, “essential” and “justified”, but is short on criteria for how these critical terms should be interpreted. The Role of an AEC: The primary responsibility of AECs is to ensure that all care and use of animals is conducted in compliance with the Code.
He states that if we are to take seriously the principle of equality, which allows us to say that all humans, despite the color of the skin or what abilities they possess, should be treated as equals, then we must commit and apply this same principle to our relation with the non-human animals. For example, if we believe discrimination against a disabled person for either their lack of mental capacity or their inability to communicate is wrong, then it is equally wrong to discriminate against animals who lack these abilities. Similarly, just as we should not disregard the interests of people who are not members of our race, we should not disregarded the interests of animals who are not members of our species. Like Jeremy Bentham, the father of modern utilitarianism, Singer believes people often draw arbitrary lines when determining whose interests should be taken into consideration. Historically speaking, sometimes the line is drawn based on gender, other times it is based race or abilities.
(Prendergast) Veterinarians are members of the AVMA and of whom earn an academic degree to practice medicine and adhere to progressive codes of ethical conduct; which is known as the Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics (PVME). (AVMA) The first ethical code is that all veterinary technicians should aid the society and the animals by providing excellent care and service to the animals. Meaning that as a veterinary technician one should be careful and aware at all times and understand sometimes the best care is not always the easiest choice.
For decades, humans have used animals for their own benefit without taking into consideration that animals have feelings. How would you feel if one day someone captivated you and used you as an experiment? Before cosmetic companies sell their products they test them on animals to make sure they will not cause any damage or harm to the customers skin regardless of the injuries they cause to the animals. Just like any human being animals should be protected from any harm because they have feeling. Animals should be able to live in their natural habitat without fear of being captivated and tortured.
In Norcross conclusion was don’t eat factory farm animal due to the way they were raised, not saying that we cannot meat but to mainly only open range growing animals. He uses argument by analogy as A has probably P, B is like A, therefore, B has probably P. This argument is A story of Fred in the situation of the puppies, B is a situation of animals raised in factory farms, P is that immortality of Perpetuating the situation. We covered the story of Fred and the puppies we said no that is wrong, even with the harvest cocoamones, in this discussion, one of the company dated then it must be morally right. Even if it enhances a gustatory experience.
My objective is to address this question working within a utilitarian perspective. I believe that there are two main reasons why is important to address this problem within the utilitarian approach. First, utilitarianism has proven to be a great tool in the animal rights movement. The 'equal consideration of interest for all who can experience pleasure and pain' is a simple and powerful maxim to defend the need to transform the way we treat non-human animals. Even if Peter Singer did not start the animal rights movement, he was the one who popularised it.
In his work, Tom Regan establishes the rights of animals used in scientific research. He argues that when animals are used as objects of experiment, they are not respected and their inherent value is not acknowledged. Having inherent value, as defined by Regan, is a state, in which a being is not just a vessel, but a being with a complex mental life. All who have inherent value are to have it equally.