A group of students in my Philosophy and Public Issues class just gave a presentation on the moral status of animals, focusing on medical and other forms of testing. There are obviously countless resources available online. Here's a piece worth checking out. Of note, especially given our discussion in class, is the following passage:
"Moreover, it is argued, the lives of all creatures, great and small, have value and are worthy of respect. This right to be treated with respect does not depend on an ability to reason. An insane person has a right to be treated with respect, yet he or she may not be able to act rationally. Nor does a right to be treated with respect rest on being a member of a certain species. Restricting respect for life to a certain species is to perform an injustice similar to racism or sexism. Like the racist who holds that respect for other races does not count as much as respect for his or her own race, those who support painful experimentation on animals assume that respect for other species does not count as much as respect for members of his or her own species. "Speciesism" is as arbitrarily unjust as racism or sexism. The right to be treated with respect rests, rather, on a creature's being a "subject of a life," with certain experiences, preferences, and interests. Animals, like humans, are subjects of a life. Justice demands that the interests of animals be respected, which includes respect for their interest to be spared undeserved pain."
I wonder what readers of this blog think of this argument and how far the conclusion extends. As was brought up in class discussion, it seems that there are some cases of causing suffering that are morally permissible. Indeed, it may be morally obligatory to torture an organism if doing so were to produce a great deal of good or prevent a great deal of bad. So what conclusion should we draw about whether it's morally permissible to engage in animal testing/the sorts of experiments that are morally acceptable?
28 comments:
I completely agree with the notion that the right to be treated with respect does not depend on the ability to reason. Nor should it require being a "moral agent." An animal's own survival matters just as much to him as ours do to us. And animals can feel pain and suffering just as humans can. It is not at all morally permissible to torture animals, and they are deserving of respect and moral consideration. But the line becomes hazy when the resultant utility from the torture of animals is considerable, like progression in medicine. However, the utility that results from the widespread torture of animals to feed a lazy, hungry planet is not morally permissible because it is not at all necessary for the progression of human life.
For the moment I agree with the ideas in speciesism. However we clearly still require copious amounts of testing to ensure that manufactured goods are safe for consumption. The only way around this, I believe would be consent from the test subject. Unfortunately for us, most animals do not have the capacity to give consent. This is where Kant's categorical imperative might have been useful. If, in order to prevent a great deal of bad, a great deal of torture must be administered, the act remains impermissable if consent is not derived from the aggrieved party (lab rats metaphorically and literally). As is seen in countless action movies, as long as the hero understands what is at stake, he usually ends up detonating the bomb (because the remote trigger is always malfunctioning) of his own free will.
Even still, consent cannot be had from animals so I think it is safe to say that animal testing is totally impermissable. The only scenario that could shake that belief would be a great multi-species plague. However it is safe to say that a great majority of even these types of calamities are often human caused (Swine Flu, Avian Flu). One would have to simply adopt a very rigid stance on respect for life while thinking cautiously about actions which may jeopardize it.
-Matt
I would say that animal testing is wrong. As Matt said, there is no way for us to get consent from the animal we are testing. I think this is a great reason why testing is morally impermissible. Just because we are unable to communicate to specimens being tested doesn't make it right to do test on them. Animals have rights also. We are animals just like them, the only difference is that we are on the top of the food chain.
Like you said, discriminating against different animals almost the same as racism or sexism. Just because we don't understand something different from ourselves does not give us the right to do whatever we want with what we don't understand. Animals feel, love, and care, just like we do. I believe is something can breath a breath of air then they should be given the same rights we have.
I also feel it's wrong to test animals for medical advancement. Why should they suffer for us? Are we that selfish. Do we really consider ourselves so much better than other species that we choose to kill them off just for our gain. We can't live without them. We are all connected. We should cherish them just like we cherish ourselves.
I would say that animal testing is wrong. As Matt said, there is no way for us to get consent from the animal we are testing. I think this is a great reason why testing is morally impermissible. Just because we are unable to communicate to specimens being tested doesn't make it right to do test on them. Animals have rights also. We are animals just like them, the only difference is that we are on the top of the food chain.
Like you said, discriminating against different animals almost the same as racism or sexism. Just because we don't understand something different from ourselves does not give us the right to do whatever we want with what we don't understand. Animals feel, love, and care, just like we do. I believe is something can breath a breath of air then they should be given the same rights we have.
I also feel it's wrong to test animals for medical advancement. Why should they suffer for us? Are we that selfish. Do we really consider ourselves so much better than other species that we choose to kill them off just for our gain. We can't live without them. We are all connected. We should cherish them just like we cherish ourselves.
Just as it is unjust to kick someone versus kicking an animal.
It is unjust to kick either--
because each have the capacity to suffer. And people that are insane are not necessarily always
acting irrational--because during certain points of instability they realize that after the instability made them sad--they could then acknowledge that the instability at first was irrational--so they are not always acting irrationally so that point doesn't really make sense to me. I'd have to have a different scenario or viewpoint because there are people that are insane but aware of the fact that they were.
Sincerely
Sherry Troutman
Matt--I don't think you can say
that the swine flu was caused by humans. I think that it might originated from birds--at least that's what they say--along with the fact that the west nile and malaria came from mosquitos. The humans can get these diseases yes--but that's not where they came from.
I also think that animal testing is wrong. Just because the animals cannot communicate how us humans can does not mean that they deserve any less rights than we do. Humans just have the ability to suffer just like animals do, but animals can't say it.
I think that there should be different ways to advance medicine or to cure diseases rather than experimenting on animals to do so. I agree with Rolland. Animals should be cherished just as much as we are.
I believe that there are good arguments on both sides. I do believe that in many cases (much more than should occur) it would not be moral to subject animals to cruel testing. But what if the pain and suffering was limited for the animal? I believe it would be very hard to argue against saving human lives when the pain of the testing animals is very low. I don't think anyone would argue that if a relative had a disease or sickness such as cancer that they wouldn't sacrifice some test mice. If you had the choice of saving mice or people, what would you do? I know it is totally inhumane for testing to be done for a pointless result. But how about the testing done for a major disease or problem in society that could save millions of lives? When I hear and see what goes on with animal testing, as an overall view I see it as wrong. But if I think about a specific situation it is different. If anyone was about to die and testing animals could save them, of course I would pick the people over the animals. I think that whether people say that animals are equally important or not, most of the time, the choice would be human over animal. To say "speciesism" as it is called, is the same as racism and sexism is also wrong. This should not even be compared. After all, what if the human mind is set to feel a linkage between other humans therefore putting humans before animals. No one has proved otherwise and there does seem to linkage between species and maybe not with other species. My final position on this argument would be that if there is a moral alternative to animal testing it should be used but if not then animal testing is moral for important societal concerns.
Torrey Johnson
I find this discussion a very interesting one. Before the presentation was given in class, I always thought animals are given more rights than humans (especially when abortion is brought into the debate), and I thought this was ridiculous. However, after reading the comments and the source on animal experimentation, I think animal testing is wrong. I think Andre and Velasquez make a good point in that the lines could get blurry depending on how far we let the debate go. They give the example that a baby and a rat were drowning who would be obliged to save? I would say the baby with no doubt because although both should not have to suffer, I think it would be natural for humans or the animals to save their own first. Therefore, even though nobody should have to suffer, suffering is inevitable, and when you have to make a choice (so no other choice is available, and it is a choice of life or death), we should care for our own first. I would say that animal testing is cruelty to animals and since there are other ways to do the testing, that using animals is unnecessary.
Roland, I think you bring up an interesting point when you say that testing animals for medical purposes is wrong as well. I would have to agree with you. Although some may say that hurting one animal may save thousands of humans, so it is acceptable, I would have to say that it is hypocritical. How can you say that animals should not be forced to suffer, yet when we know we will benefit from it we suddenly change our mind? Also, I would say that if we continue to find ways to save the human race, we must also consider the animals and plants we need for survival. If we try and control death, we are trying to make ourselves immortal, and the world cannot support us all. Suffering is inevitable at some point, although we can try and reduce it as much as possible, I think we are morally obligated to make sure we are not causing other’s to suffer (including animals), just to benefit ourselves.
Unlike the most of the previous comments, I do not think that all cases of animal testing is immoral. Take for example a dead animal. Testing on a dead animal can still be considered animal testing but doesn’t seem immoral in the sense that pain, torture, and suffering is being inflicted.
To Natoya, I also think that there should be different ways to advance medicine or to cure diseases rather than experimenting on animals but unfortunately that is much easier said than done. With no offense to you and your opinion, I personally feel, depending on the circumstances and the manner in which animal testing occurs, that it is morally permissible. If sacrificing (for a lack of a better term) a few animals such as mice can save millions of other animals lives including humans, then the act of testing animals can be morally be accepted.
From a utilitarian perspective, it seems clear that if the happiness or pleasure produced from animal testing outweighs the sadness of the animals being tested on, it is not immoral. I am curious if there are any other strong arguments against animal testing besides the "respect" argument which seems to be the most popular?
Joe Burns
To start this off, in my own opinion testing animals for research is the most wrong thing that can go on. Reading the statistics that, “about 20 million animals are experimented on and killed annually, three-fourths for medical purposes” from the article called, “Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small” is awful. The only thing I can agree on is that, other humans have a moral obligation to decrease pain, suffering, and medical conditions that end up killing humans. But this does not mean that our way of research needs to negatively affect other species such as animals.
Animals have feelings and rights just like humans. If people want to go into the field of medical research, they are by far smart enough to come up with cures that are not tested on animals. Look at how far the medical field has come in the last few centuries, every year it becomes more advanced. If we stopped testing animals for research we would continue to advance. This is because medical researchers would have to come up with new ways, meaning they would become adjusted to this.
I agree with the statement from the article, “if it is wrong to inflict pain on a human being, it is just as wrong to inflict pain on an animal.”
We do not know exactly how an animal feels when pain is inflicted on them.
This is because humans do not have the capability to understand or talk to animals. Maybe certain things that cause pain to humans may not cause pain to animals or vice versa, but we will never truly know. Animals have nervous systems, brains, and ability to feel pain just as humans do. They have somewhat of the same structure as humans, so why would they be any different? Animals do feel pain, they cry when their hurt, and they can also sense pain on a human being.
In my opinion testing animals for research will never be right. It should be ended, and researches should have to find new ways to find cures for humans. Nothing good comes out of hurting animals to make lives longer for humans. It forever will be a lose lose situation.
I believe that animal testing is wrong. Would a human rather go through what an animal goes through during testing? I don’t know of anybody who would. So why do we subject animals to torture and test things like make-up and facial products on them. Animals as some like to believe don’t have feelings or emotions, but in all reality they do and they suffer just as much if not than if a human were subjected to this kind of treatment. But I do agree with what Zoe has said about the lines blurring a bit when it comes to testing for good things such as a cure to rare form of cancer.
Although our thesis for the presentation said that animal testing is not permissible, I agree with Joe that some testing is helpful. I am not saying that testing on animals is moral in every case because most of the time its not. But just like there are loop holes in laws and bill passed by congress, there are some cases that are permissible to test on animals. If you take utilitarianism and apply it to a case where you take 10 rats, inject each rat with a different potential cure for cancer. 9 out of 10 rats die, but one of them survives. First we take the negatives from the testing on the rats. You can easily see that there are quite a bit ranging from the pain they endured to the pain and suffering their families might have felt and those like Peta who are unset by these actions. Now you take the positives. That one lone rat now shows us which is the cure for cancer. Soon cancer becomes as rare as getting polio in today's society. There is a lot of good and happiness that will come from this outcome so much that we can easily see that the positives will out weight the negatives. Another thing to think about once we find a cure for cancer less test will be done on animals for that purpose which adds even more happiness from animal lovers. Granted there is a chance that a new disease will come along that we do not have the cure for; there always is. But until then there would be less testing. Also most of these rats used for testing a bred for that specific purpose.
I believe that animal testing is wrong, even if it could be helpful. Animals cannot give consent just like the comments above have stated. People can give consent and accept the risks that could happen to them if they decide to become a tester. It is morally wrong to make any living creature suffer. Even if animals cannot talk, they can still feel pain. Scott said with the utilitarian view, how PETA and certain people feel about this would make more negatives than positives. This would make animal testing immoral.
I agree with this passage to an extent. I agree with animals being treated with respect. Animals, like humans, are alive. Humans are no better than animals, we've just evolved differently. The golden rule of life is to treat others the way you want to be treated. No matter how corny and cliche that sounds, it's true. And we've only evolved differently than animals, we don't have the right to treat them with no respect for their lives. Obviously we shouldn't be giving animals the same rights as humans, but it's important to know that animals have lives, too.
In regards to animal testing, I am for it to an extent. Animal testing for cosmetics and the wants of humans is morally impermissible. It is morally permissible to animal test for the sake of medical advances. If lives can be saved from testing on a few mice, I think it's okay. Cancer is killing thousands a year, and potentially millions could be killed in the years to come. Given that mice reproduce at an incredibly rapid rate, a few hundred thousand mice are expendable.
I dont think that all testing done on animals is wrong. In the case of testing for medical advancement, I believe it is permissible because it is being done to save the lives of humans. You all may hate me for this but the life of any human is more important to me than the life of a lab rat that was bred simply for the task of testing. When it comes to testing cosmetic products and things like that, I see how it is unnecessary torture. If people have to test a product on an animal to make sure it doesn't kill them, do you really want to put it on your skin anyway? Overall I think it depends on the reason for the testing and the outcome the people are looking to achieve, and I believe there are some instances where it can definitely help our world in a huge way.
I agree with them. I think the debate between mentally ill and animals is a very good argument and that all animals should be treated with respect and that respect means to be treated with love and care and does not include being tested on.
I think that animal testing is completely wrong. When i read that article and watched the movie in class i couldn't imagine the pain that the people are putting the animals though. That is horrible and immoral. How can one live knowing that they put a polar bear in a tank filled with oil and salt water just to see if it can live. That is so cruel. What benefit does that have to do with humans. I dont think that they should use animals for medical reasons either because you are just making the animals suffer. As we brought up in class humans should and could be involved in these experiments if some one is willing to do so then they can sign a consent form saying they will animals cant do this. They just have to sit there and suffer. This topic to me is horrible and makes me sick to my stomach I couldnt imagine seeing and/or doing any of these things to an animal. That is just one of those things that make one feel icky inside.
-Andrea Cunningham
Our presentation in class was all about the morality of animal testing and as I do believe that most animal testing wrong I believe that some modern medicine and medical advancement has come so far because of this. I feel that maybe it could be regulated a little better so that animals like the video my group had presented in class wont look like that. The way we are going about it right now is not the best way and animals are not being treated to the best that they can be. As my group stated in class, the Human race thinks that we are the best species and deserve the rights no one or thing should. We tend to think because of the fact that we have advanced much faster and farther than any pother animal.
After reading the linked article I think that stricter regulations, as it suggested, need to be more of a focus when it comes to animal testing. I do think that it is unfair to subject animals to testing unless it is to make advancements in the field of medicine. With this being said, I don’t believe that the execution of these studies is being done with the right moral intentions in all aspects of the research. Yes we are trying to better the lives of humans and end their suffering, but the moral considerations of the animals are being set aside. This can probably be attributed to things like budgeting costs. If a corporation were able to financially stand behind animal research labs that did everything in their power to make sure the animals wouldn’t suffer, while still being able to make medical advancements, it seems that our dilemma would come a step closer to being solved. Science has come so far that thinking of these types of regulations or alternatives shouldn’t be seen as impossible. The populace involved ought to see the problem in knowingly causing suffering in one animal in order to maybe end it in another.
I do see the points that satate that animal testing is wrong because it causes suffering in the animal without their consent but I do not see it to be morally worng to do animal testing. As Casey and Joe said before in the case of medical advancement animal testing is moral because it is helping for the greater good. Think of all the lives that would be lost if we did not do the testing to find cures and treatments. I know it is hard to accept the fact to get these results aniamls have to suffer along the way but in a way it is necessary so lives can be save. I do feel that animal testing is wrong when done for frivolous reasons, for example make-up. If aniaml testing is done to help save a many lives then it is a moral act.
I think the problem starts with the fact that the human race has elevated itself so much that we think we are superior to all other animals. We don’t get consent from the animals before we test on them, and this is one reason animal testing is not morally permissible. Because we can’t easily communicate with other species and it is difficult understand their thoughts and feelings, some people have no problems proceeding with animal testing. This is wrong. Animals have the same rights we do. Just because the human race has advanced itself more, doesn’t mean that other species have fewer rights. I do think that discriminating against animals is kind of like racism or sexism. Animal testing for medical advancement seems easier to deem morally acceptable, but I believe it is still wrong. It is wrong to make animals suffer for the wellbeing of the human race. Again, this is a case of us (humans) thinking we are superior to all other animals.
I think that animals should have to be treated the same way a person would be treated. Growing up in a Christian household I was always taught that we are all equal, everything from the plants and trees we see to the animals around and us humans. I was always taught that God put us all here on this earth, he put just as much love and effort into creating me as he did creating animals and I don't think that it is right for us to just use animals at our expense. Who are we to say that it is our right to use the animals like that just to keep ourselves safe. Do the animals not have the same right to be safe and healthy as we do? As humans we are not any superior species that we should be treated better than any other species. You would not be okay with getting tested for a shampoo that could cause skin blisters and severe fevers, so why do we feel its right to do that to animals? It isn't, I understand that we don't want to risk harming a human, but why do we not have the same respect for an animal? Do we think we are better than them? Without all of the creatures and organisms that God created we would not be able to live so how can we say that we are of any more importance than anything else in this world?
I guess testing to save lives is different than testing for makeup or beauty purposes--but testing to save lives on living humans would be wrong too--so then why shouldn't animal testing be similar?
I don't believe that animals should be born strictly for the purpose of testing anymore than the people who have another child strictly for the purpose of providing medical needs to another child. Animal testing is cruel and immortal. Although testing on a dead animal is no worse than testing on a dead human. We do need to learn from both to achieve medical advancements.
I think that anytime somebody wants to have a debate about animal rights it ends up making things tricky. I personally believe that animal testing needs to be done. If it can make it so we figure out ways to cure diseases or figure out a cure for cancer, something along those lines, then it should be done. If it can end up bettering the human race by doing animal testing then I do not see a problem with it. We are always looking for new ways to help cure certain things and I would rather see tests be done on animals than humans.
This is what I chose for the topic of my paper and I must say that after doing all of the research I am opposed to animal research. There are some really strong arguments for and against animal testing but after doing the research the arguments for animal testing are quite weak in my opinion.
The first argument for testing is that animals cannot exercise moral claims, and therefor have no moral rights and are not moral beings. Basically that says animals don't have a will, the can't judge right from wrong, etc. This claim that animals don't have such traits can be easily disproved if you do something as watch your dog decide between table scraps and its dog food. They would obviously have the will to eat table scraps. The fact that animals cannot communicate there wishes into words we can understand doesn't mean that they don't have such things either. Many humans can't do this yet they still have rights. There are many other examples of why we should continue animal testing that can also be easily disproved this way. These were just a few I wanted to use to get my point across that animals are moral beings and should not be used for tests.
In another comment I saw that speciesism shouldn't be compared to racism or sexism. In my opinion it is comparable to any other form of discrimination because animals do have such things as autonomy and reasoning. They can feel pain and to say that an organism that can feel pain can and should be used for something such as animal testing is as bad as using slaves. They are being contained against their will and shouldn't have to endure such pains.
Just as a final note, think of animal testing as if it were to happen to humans. Say we were abducted by a group of aliens and subject to many painful and agonizing tests. To the aliens we might just seem to be the same as animals do to us, but does that make it right for these aliens to be using us for tests? It would be comparable to how we use animals for our tests, so how should we look at a case like this?
I agree with the fact that there are some instances that torturing organisms is morally acceptable if it brings extreme amounts of good, rather than high amounts of bad. This could easily be seen from a utilitarian perspective. Let’s say there is a new drug they believe can cure cancer, and they test that on animals they have injected with cancerous tissues. Yes, there is no guarantee that this “cure” will work, but if it did, the amount of good coming from this instance would be phenomenal due to the fact that there are so many cases of cancer in the world. On the contrary, if there is a new face wash or cosmetic product that has been created and that is tested on animals, I do not believe that is morally okay. I think a lot of people believe it is morally okay because it has been done so much in the past that no one really views it as being wrong, but I believe it is. In the first example, that medicine could save millions of people’s lives. In the second example, people can survive without the top-of-the-line face washes and cosmetic products, so how it is fair to test these things on animals when they are not a necessity to living.
Post a Comment