Animal Testing Is Cruel Regardless Of Its Benefits

Name: Professor’s Name: Course: Date: Animal Testing is Cruel and Unethical Regardless of the Benefits of it The debate over whether animal testing is cruel and unethical has been ongoing for several decades. It is not a secret that medical researchers make use of non-human animals as subjects in their experiments. However, the biggest question has always been whether the act is ethical or not. Looking at the respondents to this question, there is a clear divide between those who believe it is good practice and those who do not. On one side, there are those who adamantly believe that animal experimentation should end simply because it is wrong to treat animals as mere tools. Apparently, those who advocate for this point of view believe that animals, like humans, feel pain and are also full of life. Therefore, they should be treated as conscious beings. On the other hand, there are those who believe that animals are mere tools and that using them in research does not in any way contradict any laws or ethical principles in existence. This group seem to base their argument on the fact that animal experimentation has led to the creation and expansion of present knowledge of man’s body. Aside from the above, this group is also adamant in their notion that animals lack the cognitive capabilities which help to differentiate mankind from them. Neither side is willing to admit or to succumb to the arguments of the other nor has consensus on the matter been reached. Aside from the above, it is essential to acknowledge that there are also those who seem to believe that they have a place in the middle of the argument, i.e. they expect animal experimentation to continue but within certain lines. Unlike the lot above, this article will take a stand and while acknowledging the weight of the opposing viewpoints opine that it is indeed ethical and morally right to conduct tests on animals. One of the reasons why it is morally and ethically right to experiment on animals is that they do not belong to man’s moral community. “The origins and development of the theory of human rights is inextricably tied to the development of moral universalism” CITATION Ale \l 1033 (Alex). The above statement simply means that the notion or idea of rights does not apply to anyone and everything but only those within our so-called moral community. While within such a group, everyone is obligated to respond and treat everyone else with the respect that recognizes their moral rights and status. However, one may ask, on what basis or what is used to determine whether someone or something belongs to a particular group? Well, if the group under question is mankind, the answer would include factors such as autonomy, self-awareness, and the ability to wish and pursue goals in life. In trying to provide a deeper analysis of the above, Fox makes use of two terms: the inner circle and the outer circle. For creatures to be considered as members of the inner circle, Fox opines that they “must possess the sorts of characteristics” which include “critical self-awareness; the ability to manipulate complex concepts and to use sophisticated language (especially for the purpose of communicating wishes, desires, needs, decisions, choices and so on); and the capacity to reflect, plan, deliberate, choose, and accept responsibility for acting” CITATION Mic86 \l 1033 (Michael). Looking at animals, Fox opines that they belong to the outer group and that they are entitled to only modified sets of rights. The main reason for this is that they cannot develop or grow to have the range of capacities accorded to mankind. Aside from the above, it is also essential to acknowledge that animals lack the cognitive capabilities accorded to mankind. Unlike animals, mankind can choose to do what they want with their lives as long as it is within the set of laws that guide or apply to them. However, within these guidelines, mankind can pursue specific life goals and live as they want. However, animals are quite different and aside from being controlled by man, they seem to not have purpose or objectives which they are working towards. The truth is, as a result of the above, mankind only seems to have a limited obligation towards animals. When we value something, we are said to have value for it. However, this value is divided into two: intrinsic and instrumental value. One is said to value things instrumentally when they see it “as a means to an end” CITATION Emr17 \l 1033 (Emrys). She continues to state that we value things intrinsically when we consider it “valuable in itself…and valued by someone for its own sake.” Well for animals, there have been various arguments but looking objectively at the situation, it is clear that mankind only keeps the animals for instrumental value. For example, the zoos, in certain games, etc. Animals are seen as ...