In summary, defenders of animal experimentation argue that humans have higher moral status than animals and fundamental rights that animals lack.
Another way to reduce animal use is to ensure that studies are conducted according to the highest standards and that all information collected will be useable.
This essay defends animal experimentation. 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.
Cohen, Andrew and Wellman, Christopher eds. Additionally, well designed studies and appropriate statistical analysis of data can minimize the number of animals Animal experimentation paper 3 for statistically significant results.
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.
This means reducing pain and suffering as much as possible. Animals Rights and Vivisection. A great resource describing some ways to minimize the use of animals in research and to practice the best standards when using animals.
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. 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.
Therefore, they should have the same moral status and deserve equal treatment. In fact, some of them the infants will surely meet all of the criteria in the future. This reflects a belief in a hierarchy of moral standing with more complex animals at the top and microorganisms and plants at the bottom.
A third principle is to ensure the best possible treatment of the animals used in a study. With that in mind, the argument runs, it is best practice to act charitably and treat all humans as part of the moral community.
For example bacteriafruit flies, and plants would be preferred over mammals. Being of a particular race or gender does not give one any grounds for declaring outsiders to be of a lower moral status. One common form of this argument claims that moral status comes from the capacity to suffer or to enjoy life.
Some philosophers advocate the idea of a moral community. Below, I will outline one of the more common arguments used to reach this conclusion.
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. Roughly speaking, this is a group of individuals who all share certain traits in common.
Do they lack fundamental human rights and should we use them for experimentation? By sharing these traits, they belong to a particular moral community and thus take on certain responsibilities toward each other and assume specific rights.
Extensive literature searches, for instance, can ensure that experiments are not unnecessarily replicated and can ensure that animal models are only used to obtain information not already available in the scientific community. Are those individuals outside the human moral community?
Also, anyone who handles the animals should be properly trained. One principle calls for the preferential research use of less complex organisms whenever possible. However, we look upon past examples of this behavior as morally condemnable.
Proponents of the middle ground position usually advocate a few basic principals that they believe should always be followed in animal research.
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. Both infants and the mentally handicapped frequently lack complex cognitive capacities, full autonomy, or even both of these traits.
They can feel pain and experience pleasure. This philosophical essay briefly presents his views. 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.
Many animal rights advocates argue similarly—that just because we are human is not sufficient grounds to declare animals less morally significant.
Accordingly, potential animal rights violations are outweighed by the greater human benefits of animal research. Peter Singer is one of the best publicly known advocates of animal rights and animal equality.
Providing high quality, disease-free environments for the animals will help ensure that every animal counts. 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.
If animals do not have the same rights as humans, it becomes permissible to use them for research purposes. The first step in making that argument is to show that humans are more important than animals.Related Documents: Research Paper Animal Experimentation Science and Animal Experimentation Essay Jimmy Roberts, 1 Animal Experimentation Whether supported or not, experiments done on animals have be ongoing for the last century.
Animal Experimentation Animal experimentation is the use of non-human animals in experiments. Millions of animals are used annually in laboratories to test in household products, medicine, make up, food additives, weaponry, and psychological experiments.
Animals Used for Experimentation. Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside barren cages in laboratories across the country.
Does animal experimentation save human lives? Where can I find leather alternatives? How is a company certified as cruelty-free? Why does PETA use. Animal Experimentation ii Research Paper Outline Title: Should Animal Experimentation be Abandon? I Introduction Thesis Statement: Animal testing is a debatable issue in modern society.
Some people argue that animal testing should be kept due to medical benefits and research study conveniences. However, I think animal experimentation.
In the spring ofa veterinary lab at the University of California at Davis was destroyed by a fire that caused $ million in damage.
Credit for the fire was claimed by the Animal Liberation Front, a clandestine international group committed to halting experimentation on animals. Animal experimentation uses billions of taxpayer dollars every year, hardly has any scientific relevance, and animal experimentation causes a huge deal of pain, suffering and death to animals.
[tags: Animal Testing].Download