And that is just in the US. Imagine what it is like in countries like China where they require animal testing. But there are also many positive arguments to animal testing. Some argue that people shouldn’t protest about animal testing when we eat more animals that we test. They ask why they don’t protest butcherers or farms where they produce meat for us to consume.
Looking at pets for example, society implements laws protecting these animals because becoming aware of a pet in pain would lead to human discomfort due to numerous facts such as the strong friendly bond people have with their pets. Though if we look at the case of eating meat, most of society does not extend their moral code to protect the animals farmed or hunted for food because they are protecting their interests such as the pleasure they enjoy from the taste of meat or the energy it gives their bodies. The interest of not having to pay more than required is also a strong contributing factor to the way animals are treated. Here human moral code is not extended to look after these animals. Because even though farming and hunting animals has extreme consequences to the environment and the animals suffering on farms, it has little direct discomfort to humans such as seeing a mans best friend in pain.
In “Animal Research Saves Lives” by Sabin, she purports “…. those who support an “animal rights’ agenda would cripple research and halt medical science in its tracks are slamming the door on the possibilities of new treatment and cures.” In, Goodall’s “A Question of Ethics” argument, she states “I believe that more and more people are becoming aware that to use animals thoughtlessly, without any anguish or making an effort to find another way, diminishes us as human beings.” Clearly, both arguments had a claim for what would be the premise of their essay, setting the stage for their readers to understand the background of the argument and the accepted or understood
Additionally, science contributes to following ethical value in researches using animals. In science, animals can be used in the research field only if the suffering to the animal is minimized and there is no other way to lead the experiment (“Experimenting on animals”). This field also finds a way to give animals their deserved value while they are tested. Beyond, following the rules is necessary to be a part of a society. As stated in the book named Asian Perspectives on Animal Ethics: Rethinking the Nonhuman, written by philosophical professor Dalal Neil from the University of Alberta and Chloë Taylor, assistant professor in the subject human and animal in the University of Alberta emphasized that violating the animal rights that is against the protection
It is important to notice that (1) in this article, applying the general idea of utilitarianism which is “the greatest happiness of greatest number” and (2) the animals testing under the rules and regulations. In this paper, under those premise I will argue that animal testing will produce such great benefits for humanity that it is morally acceptable to harm a few animals. In the following, I will structured by providing the clean definition of the key term and explain how great animal testing can contribute to humanity (great utility), in addition with the principle of replaceability to sacrifice animals is acceptable. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is kind of Consequential theory, which means the moral worth of an action is determined only by the
The ethical altruist is the consummate animal rights activist. Not only would an altruist agree that non-human animals were sentient and thus deserving of moral rights, the altruist would see all animals as sentient beings deserving of equal rights as humans. Altruist thinking dictates helping others, even if that means sacrificing their own goals, security, and happiness. In modern western culture, many official animal rights organizations have adopted altruistic moral positions on animal research as well as many other animal rights issues. Many animal rights activists regularly protest the use of animals in all kinds of research.
As stated before, God cares about the human race, more so than he does animals. He placed the animals on the earth to meet the needs of mankind, and if the Golden Rule applied to animals’ rights, then mankind wouldn’t be able to use them to meet their needs. This doesn’t mean that animals should be abused, though. Animals are still one of God’s beautiful creations, and he gave us dominion over the animals to protect them and to care for them. In the end, though, God still values human beings more than he does animals.
Animal rights is based on the idea that some or all non human animals have a right to live their own lives and to be viewed as persons rather than property this effectively makes the use of animals as research subjects, for entertainment, clothing, food and ad beasts of burden to be prohibited. A strong advocate of animal rights is the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or PETA. In the Unites States there are plenty of organizations that hold animal rights and where volunteers can join in to support AR. These are the American you mean Association animal allies call me kete abolish sport hunting and progressive Animal Welfare Society, to name a few. In 1966 the Animal Welfare Act was signed into law and is enforced by the Animal Care, APHIS and USDA.
Others think it’s the most accurate, alternative way of testing different products. According to www.peta.org.uk, president Albert Einstein proudly states, “Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and it’s beauty.” He is saying, “treat others like you want to be treated,” including animals. There are 72% of people on this planet that oppose animal testing, the other 28% belongs to people who support this issue. According to Animal Testing - ProCon.org, “animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them.” This quote is stating the animals have no say in animal testing, therefore the humans decide if it is ok to use them for
Lennon’s article to a certain extent in which she stated that “eating meat selectively is better for the planet and our own health”. It can also improve the economy and we should all encourage welfare improvements for animals. Moreover, I applaud the editor’s ethical decision to eat less meat and her suggestion on grass fed and pasture raised meat is definitely a better alternative for health conscious people as well as people who lack knowledge in the nutrition field that are vegetarian for health purposes. However it is not seen to me as a moralistic solution but rather a slightly more ethical answer for meat eaters and an excuse for not so “ethically motivated” vegetarians to justify the commodification and consumption of animals for their
Animal Bill of Rights Is it moral for animals to be victims of abuse? The Animal Legal Defense Fund has created an Animal Bill of Rights petition to the United States Congress. The Animal Bill of Rights includes the following rights: the right of animals to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse, the right of laboratory animals not to be used in cruel or unnecessary experiments, the right of companion animals to a healthy diet, protective shelter and adequate medical care, the right of wildlife to a natural habitat, ecologically sufficient to a normal existence and a self-sustaining population, the right of farmed animals to an environment that satisfies their basic physical and psychological needs, and finally the right of animals to have their interest represented in court and safeguarded by the law of the land (Animal Bill of Rights). Animals should have