Argument layout against animal testing

An article published in the esteemed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has even evaluated this very claim and concluded that it was not supported by any evidence. Most experiments on animals are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances, and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses.

Argument layout against animal testing

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.

This alone represents a shift from a past view where animals had no moral status and treating an animal well was more about maintaining human standards of dignity than respecting any innate rights of the animal.

In modern times, the question has shifted from whether animals have moral status to how much moral status they have and what rights come with that status. 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.

Argument layout against animal testing ethicists who endorse this position do not mean that animals are entitled to the very same treatment as humans; arguing that animals should have the right to vote or hold office is clearly absurd.

The claim is that animals should be afforded the same level of respectful treatment as humans; in short, 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.

One common form of this argument claims that moral status comes from the capacity to suffer or to enjoy life. In respect to his capacity, many animals are no different than humans.

They can feel pain and experience pleasure. Therefore, they should have the same moral status and deserve equal treatment. However, we look upon past examples of this behavior as morally condemnable.

Argument layout against animal testing

Being of a particular race or gender does not give one any grounds for declaring outsiders to be of a lower moral status. Many animal rights advocates argue similarly—that just because we are human is not sufficient grounds to declare animals less morally significant.

The first step in making that argument is to show that humans are more important than animals. Below, I will outline one of the more common arguments used to reach this conclusion. Some philosophers advocate the idea of a moral community. Roughly speaking, this is a group of individuals who all share certain traits in common.

By sharing these traits, they belong to a particular moral community and thus take on certain responsibilities toward each other and assume specific rights. Although a moral community could theoretically include animals, it frequently does not.

The human moral community, for instance, is often characterized by a capacity to manipulate abstract concepts and by personal autonomy.

Since most animals do not have the cognitive capabilities of humans and also do not seem to possess full autonomy animals do not rationally choose to pursue specific life goalsthey are not included in the moral community. Once animals have been excluded from the moral community, humans have only a limited obligation towards them; on this argument, we certainly would not need to grant animals all normal human rights.

We recommend:

If animals do not have the same rights as humans, it becomes permissible to use them for research purposes. Under this view, the ways in which experimentation might harm the animal are less morally significant than the potential human benefits from the research.

One problem with this type of argument is that many humans themselves do not actually fulfill the criteria for belonging to the human moral community. Both infants and the mentally handicapped frequently lack complex cognitive capacities, full autonomy, or even both of these traits.

Are those individuals outside the human moral community? Do they lack fundamental human rights and should we use them for experimentation? One philosophical position actually accepts those consequences and argues that those humans have the exact same rights or lack of rights as non-human animals.

However, most people are uncomfortable with that scenario and some philosophers have put forth a variety of reasons to include all humans in the human moral community.

In fact, some of them the infants will surely meet all of the criteria in the future. With that in mind, the argument runs, it is best practice to act charitably and treat all humans as part of the moral community.

In summary, defenders of animal experimentation argue that humans have higher moral status than animals and fundamental rights that animals lack.

Accordingly, potential animal rights violations are outweighed by the greater human benefits of animal research. Proponents of the middle ground position usually advocate a few basic principals that they believe should always be followed in animal research. One principle calls for the preferential research use of less complex organisms whenever possible.

For example bacteriafruit flies, and plants would be preferred over mammals.against animal testing ‘Models’, ‘test systems’, ‘research tools’, ‘products’; euphemisms for animals.

They are called anything but living, feeling, sentient creatures. The Ethics of Animal Experimentation. By Stephanie Liou 06 Jul, Animal Research, 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.

We post about:

They do not represent every. The format I chose for the debate was a six-minute opening argument from the pro-animal testing side, a four-minute rebuttal from the opposing team, then the response to the rebuttal in 2 minutes, as well as a concluding 2 minutes from the pro-animal testing side.

Here are the top reasons to stop animal testing. If these atrocious acts were committed outside laboratories, they would be felonies. your site helped! I am sure everyone that hears your arguments in my assignment will be as against animal testing as you and I are. Reply. Garcia42 says: August 12, at PM I think that animal. The format I chose for the debate was a six-minute opening argument from the pro-animal testing side, a four-minute rebuttal from the opposing team, then the response to the rebuttal in 2 minutes, as well as a concluding 2 minutes from the pro-animal testing side. Review opinions on the online debate Animal Testing. DEBATES. OPINIONS. FORUMS. POLLS. Google Search People have many different arguments both for and against it. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or IACUC was created to developed methods for animal testing that keep it as humane as possible. In fact in your last argument.

Arguments against animal testing Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective.

Against Animal Testing essay. As any other field, we have people, groups, and nations that support the argument for animal testing and those that are against the concept of animal testing. The supporters of this concept argue that computers can be unreliable in giving accurate results or information on issues related to cells, environment.

The practice of using animals for testing has been a controversial issue over the past thirty years. Animal testing is a morally debated practice.

The question is whether animal testing is morally right or wrong. This paper will present both sides of this issue as well as my own opinion.

Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint | PETA