Gluck; Ethics and Behavior, Vol. Are animal experiments useful? In respect to his capacity, many animals are no different than humans. Most people agree that animals have at least some moral status — that is why it is wrong to abuse pets or needlessly hurt other animals. There is so much more work to be done to give advocates the insight they need to choose the most effective ways to help animals.
This reflects a belief in a hierarchy of moral standing with more complex animals at the top and microorganisms and plants at the bottom. The basic arithmetic If performing an experiment would cause more harm than not performing it, then it is ethically wrong to perform that experiment.
The strongest pro animal rights answer to this question would be that non-human animals have exactly the same moral status as humans and are entitled to equal treatment. Thanks to the work of anti-vivisection groups, this is changing.
Video footage from inside laboratories shows that many animals cower in fear every time someone walks by their cage. Some philosophers advocate the idea of a moral community. Animals Rights and Vivisection.
And to make sure that these experiments do not cause any harm to precious human life, we have to test them on animals. It would also be obvious to a normal 12 year old child Animal experiments only benefit human beings if their results are valid and can be applied to human beings.
Another principle is to reduce animal use as far as possible in any given study. More human lives could be saved and more suffering prevented by educating people about the importance of avoiding fat and cholesterol, quitting smoking, reducing alcohol and other drug consumption, exercising regularly, and cleaning up the environment than by all the animal tests in the world.
With that in mind, the argument runs, it is best practice to act charitably and treat all humans as part of the moral community.
One common form of this argument claims that moral status comes from the capacity to suffer or to enjoy life. This bleak result of deciding the morality of experimenting on animals on the basis of rights is probably why people always justify animal experiments on consequentialist grounds; by showing that the benefits to humanity justify the suffering of the animals involved.
Ethical arithmetic Animal experiments and ethical arithmetic The consequentialist justification of animal experimentation can be demonstrated by comparing the moral consequences of doing or not doing an experiment. This Faunalytics Fundamental has provided a visual overview of the use of animals in research.
A review paper co-authored by a Yale School of Medicine professor in the prestigious medical journal The BMJ documented the overwhelming failure of experiments on animals to improve human health. Animal experiments and drug safety Scientists say that banning animal experiments would mean either an end to testing new drugs or using human beings for all safety tests Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings - they cannot do that.
They can feel pain and experience pleasure. Roughly speaking, this is a group of individuals who all share certain traits in common.
Even when such policies exist, teachers and students may not be aware of them. Attitudes regarding the use of animals for student dissection are less clear given there are fewer surveys of those audiences.Recreation and companionship is as old as the human beings itself Share Home Beyond This Issue SEED: Collected Papers SEED Papers: Published Fall Science in Early Childhood Classrooms: Content and Process Karen Worth Zoophilia is a paraphilia involving a sexual fixation on non-human an argument against the process of animal experimentation animals.
Arguments Against Animal Testing That Everyone Should Know About. It won't be far off-track to say that animal testing is not the most reliable method of proving the safety of our drugs.
For instance, we have this drug that has been safely tested on animals. It has passed all the trials, on the basis of which it has been deemed safe for. Usually, this middle view accepts experimentation on some, but not all, animals and aims to avoid unnecessary use of animals in scientific research by pursuing alternatives to animal testing.
The following sections briefly outline a few of the arguments for and against animal experimentation. Research on animals costs many millions of lives each year.
And millions more animals are kept confined in laboratories and cages, awaiting their turn for experimentation. Biomedical research using animals is a largely secretive process and the public knows little about what goes on in research labs.
Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge non-animal research methodologies promises a brighter future for both animal and human health. The following are common statements supporting animal experimentation followed by the arguments against them.
Animal Testing Animal testing is a controversial subject amongst many people, some of which believe it greatly benefits humanity and others who believe it is animal cruelty. Animal treatment during testing is one of the most discussed arguments between those who are for and against testing.Download