They languish in pain, suffer from extreme frustration, ache with loneliness, and long to be free. Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them. The complete lack of environmental enrichment and the stress of their living situation cause some animals to develop neurotic types of behavior such as incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth, pulling out their own fur, and even biting themselves. After enduring a life of pain, loneliness, and terror, almost all of them will be killed.
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 Animal experimention a past view where animals had no moral status and treating an animal well was more about maintaining human standards Animal experimention 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.
The 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. 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. 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.But animal testing is the basis of medical research..
so you must be against scientific advances and medical progress. No. We are in favour of research and scientific progress, but not at any cost. The Wine Show wines as featured on the ITV show including featured and recommended wines by wine expert Joe Fattorini and The Wine Show presenters Matthew Goode and.
Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results.
A list of and links to question and answer pages about animal testing. There are many non-animal test methods that can be used in place of animal testing. Not only are these non-animal tests more humane, they also have the potential to be cheaper, faster, and more relevant to humans.
Animal experimentation up 73 percent, study says Charles Cook, manager of facilities and operations at Champions Oncology, displays mouse carrying a cancer patient's tumor graft under its skin in.