Follow/Fav Ethics of Animal Testing An essay applying utilitarianism to animal testing. I did this for the class in college and got a perfect score. This may not be my personal opinion, it was an assignment we aced.
Rated: Fiction K – English – Words: 964 – Reviews: 16 – Favs: 2 – Published: 3/27/2004 – Status: Complete – id: 1563663 – Full 3/4 1/2 Expand Tighten The Ethics of Animal Testing
Years ago, while laws were not in its place to circumvent it, some researchers experimented on animals. The outcome of them experiments are still sometimes with us today. Take insulin, as an illustration, that it was discovered when an Ontario doctor severed the connection relating to the pancreas together with the gastrointestinal system of a dog.1 Today you may still find many animals in labs being tested to look for cures for anything from cancer to pain killers. In the event the results have a very possibility to conserve numerous lives, as regarding insulin for the people with diabetes, then testing on animals needs to be the right action to take right? A lot of people disagree stating that the suffering of an animal is not really really worth the saving of lives, particularly if the tests are unsuccessful. They compare the animal’s lives to those people of humans, claiming that it is not right to test on human orphans. Therefore it must not be directly to test on stray animals. So therein lies the ethical dilemma; might it be straight to experiment on animals?
Throughout this paper I will examine animal rights from a utilitarians perspective. I am going to define the foremost points that utilitarianism holds and animal testing. I am going to explore the cases for and against animal testing using utilitarian reasoning (including Bentham and Mill’s disagreement, act and rule utilitarianism, and expense-benefit analysis). Finally I will close with my feelings on animal experimentation and my conclusions drawn within the analysis.
First, utilitarian theory is consequentionalist and stress the ends of a particular action. It is also Hedonistic by nature, meaning is focuses primarily on happiness and pleasure, those being the only intrinsic good. A utilitarian considers five factors in the pleasure of your consequences of an act, whichever act leads to essentially the most pleasure or happiness is the greatest thing to do finally. John Mill argued that the caliber of the pleasure can be a consideration also. Consider also the distinction between act utilitarianism (considering each act individually) and rule utilitarianism (using the consequences of an act universally). Additionally, a contemporary version of utilitarianism, cost-benefit analysis, states that whatever act produces as much as possible (or saves as much as possible), is always that decision that need to be made.
Second, animal testing features any medical test performed while on an animal. Including product testing, like perfume and cleaners, and research similar to the connection between isolation for a social animal. To examine animal testing from your utilitarian viewpoint we have to consider no matter if an animal can feel pain, or suffer. We typically you should not consider animals as being without feeling, that is why we now have laws protecting animals against cruelty. Many of us disagree about if locking an animal in any cage is cruelty or maybe not.
The way it is for animal testing Using utilitarianism generally, if testing on animals produces some of the most happiness overall and reduces suffering then it is the perfect thing to do. When medical breakthrough are created at the expense of an animal, may be the happiness of people who is often cured higher than the suffering in the animal who underwent the experiments? Mill would frequently believe that the happiness of someone who has been cured would be longer lasting and much better then this self gratifying happiness of any animal. Act utilitarianism would examine each instance of animal testing and find out if your consequences are better if your animal is tested on than whether or not it were not. Finally, cost-benefit analysis would may actually are in agreement with animal testing because innovations in medicine means money made and saved on healthcare. This might produce as much as possible and include the better option to take if the question is to test out or not.
The case against animal testing Jeremy Bentham was purely worried about the amount of pleasure produced. You could consider that the quantity of suffering an animal could be subjected to in tests are not worth the degree of suffering that will be reduced in cases where a cure were found. Individuals who are against animal testing would not experience pleasure then one can think that those testing the animals would not gain happiness from watching your pet suffer. Therefore one can believe that not testing to the animals would indeed reduce suffering and maximize pleasure. Rule utilitarianism applies best here, because then anyone can consider the consequences of everyone testing on animals for any reason. With the much freedom to testing negative consequences is going to be prone to occur and therefore banning animal testing is the best action.