Animal Testing: The Moral Issue Analysis

It is hard to understand why an animal should be used to conduct research which is aimed at finding medicine for the human disease (Singer) . Singer notes that majority of human beings believe that other species are there to make human life comfortable and therefore it is inevitable to use nonhuman to please human. Sussex university philosophers believe that it is through liberty, fraternity, and equality that human will change their attitudes towards animals and consider mistreatment of the animal as a practice which should not happen (Singer). By classifying animal exploitation as illegal, it will be possible to attract the

He sought out liberation for animals because he views animals having their own intrinsic worth. Individual animals are not a means to an end, rather these individuals are ends within

In spite of that, some people believe that animal testing is not essential and it should be banned because animals are different from humans physically. In addition, they believe that animal tests are a waste of time and money and there are lower cost alternative methods and more effective. Our purpose of this essay is to prove that animal testing is important and has a lot of benefits and advantages for humanity. Using animals in medical and scientific experiments is necessary, because it finds many cures and treatments, animals bodies are almost similar to the human bodies, also it benefits the animals themselves from diseases.

Animal experiments are conducted to test whether the manufactured drugs, that are going to be put out in the market, are safe. They are also conducted as research purposes, like discovering cures for untreatable diseases. However, animal testing has been called in to question because its cruelty and lack of promised results. Is it possible to assume animal testing has become unnecessary?

There is no unambiguous evidence that proves animal testing is essential for medical researches. In fact, the increasing evidence shows that it is actually an ineffective way to understand human physiology and others because humans are different from other animals in anatomy, genetics and metabolism. If science research field was given enough fund to do animal-free alternatives, other solutions to replace animal testing can certainly be found. In reality, Humane Research Australia (HRA) reports that many discoveries made by non-animal methods were later verified by animal experiments, which gives false credit to animal use and indirectly making people rely more on and have faith in animal testing. For example, HRA notes, “Ovarian function was demonstrated by physician Dr. Robert.

Animals deserve better. This does matter, I don’t want animals to die. People need to acknowledge their actions. Don’t let vets test your pets with medicine without permission. This does matter.

The use of animals for gaming and entertainment purposes constitute animal cruelty because it is heartbreaking, unnecessary and dangerous. Initially many would argue that the use of animals for entertainment does not constitute as animal cruelty because they aren't tortured. For example, some people say that zoos are essential because it is safer

Although it can be useful to know the side effects of something before trying it on humans, we don’t consider the effects it can have on the animals, which are often extremely harmful and cruel. Scientists have become progressive in creating alternative methods to these experiments. Now, animal testing is nearly unnecessary because there are alternatives which are more efficient and harmless. The rights of animals is a topic that comes up frequently, but people often turn their cheek the other way when it comes to their possessions being a product of cruelty.

These people would also say it is difficult to replace animals because other options are more difficult to test on. According to Ferdowsian, replacing animals in research would be difficult because the biology and genetic make up of animals is too similar to humans to be easy to replicate. Therefore, removing all animal testing would be a difficult task because testing the products on an actual organism allow researchers to mirror the outcomes of the products on humans. However, Ferdowsian continues by stating, “While it is important to acknowledge limitations to non-animal methods remain, recent developments demonstrate that these limitations should be viewed as rousing challenges rather than insurmountable obstacles.” (par. 21)

-On the other hand, many people like activists and welfarists from animal rights organizations, believe killing an animal should be and for them is against the law, because it is still an animal with feelings that was also trying to defend itself. -Some religions, such as Buddhism also believe that animals are superior to men and should therefore not be damaged in any way. They say that no one has the right to take away a living beings life, because they too have the right to exist. -In conclusion, no human being shall feel superior to other living beings, but when it comes to helping other people or saving yourself when you’re in danger, the injuring or maybe killing of an animal is nothing.

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.