Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Animal Experimentation is the use of non-human animals in experiments that seek to control the variables that affect the behavior or biological system under study.
There are three sides to ethical issues concerning Animal Experimentation: Pro Animal Testing, Anti Animal Testing and the Middle Ground.
Current Issue
In this case, debaters firstly argue that humans are more important than animals. It is said that since animals lack cognitive capabilities of humans and also do not seem to possess full autonomy, they are not included in the moral community. Because animals are excluded from the moral community, humans obligation towards them are only limited and thus do not need to grant animals normal human rights. Thus, it becomes permissible to use animals for research purposes because they do not have the same rights as humans.
The middle ground includes debaters who feel uncomfortable with animal experimentation, but believe that in some circumstances the good arising out of the experimentation does outweigh harm to the animal. The middle ground suggests four principles:
Greek physician Claudius Galen (AD 129-200) was the first to experiment on animals using monkeys and pigs. Through this experiment, Galen proved that urine was formed in the kidneys and found arteries carried blood. He was also known as the "father of vivi section".
Those against animal testing centers their debate on the question of how much moral status animals have and what rights come with that status. Most agree that animals have at least some moral status, which is why it is wrong to abuse pets or hurt other animals. These debaters believe that non-human animals have exactly the same moral status as humans and are entitled to equal treatment. To shortly put, we should not have the right to kill animals, force them into our service, or otherwise treat them merely as means to further our own goals. Debaters also argue that animals cannot give consent to take part of experimentation and thus should not be forced to do so without any choice.
"About Animal Testing." Humane Society International. 21 Mar. 2016 <http://www.hsi.org/campaigns/end_animal_testing/qa/about.html?referrer=https://www.google.bs/>
"Animal Testing." 20 Mar. 2016 <http://animal-testing.procon.org/
Bentham, Jeremy. "Harm and Suffering." Animals in Research. 21 Mar. 2016 <http://www.neavs.org/research/harm-suffering>
<http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101/>
1. Animal testing is cruel and inhumane.
2. Alternative testing methods currently exists that can replace the need for animals.
6. Animals can suffer like humans do, so it speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans.
3. Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects.
4. Alternatives to animal testing are too costly.
5. Some substances that are tested on animals, may never be used for anything useful.
1. Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures treatments.
2. Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways.
3. Animals often make better research subjects than human beings because of their shorter life cycles.
4. Animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them.
5. Religious traditions allow for human dominion over animals.