Along with enhancing animal safety steps, another thing that everybody can do is try and find non-animal alternatives to animal testing. The issue about non-animal alternatives is that they aren’t always easy to find or reliable when it comes to possibly deadly drugs (Hajar). One alternative in particular has shown to be very promising. They are called in silico tests. These tests are computer-based tests that function much like a virtual screening. This allows for tests to be conducted on the computer rather than using an animal. Since a real animal is not being used, there could be different results, even life changing results. The data collected on the computer would need to be carried out and tested in a real life experiment. It has flaws,
…show more content…
If in the results, the costs and harm outweighs the benefits then the experiment should not be conducted. This is trying to use a cost/benefit analysis when discussing animal suffering, which is not possible to do. All animals need to be treated equally. If any amount of suffering could arise then that needs to be taken into consideration. So when faced with questions of morals, the best option is to strive to make science as morally acceptable as possible. “It is not possible to argue that smarter or stronger is better and therefore the use of less intelligent or weaker animals is justified” (Animal Experimentation). This thought process is very common in society. People believe that somehow humans are of a higher comprehension and complexity while animals are seen as weaker and therefore less important. If humans are more important, then they can do whatever they want to these animals. Which means animal experimentation is one hundred percent justifiable. This statement is false because it invalidates all morality (Animal Experimentation). If morality does not exist, then many universal beliefs would be considered null and void. Every belief would have to be reinvented to fit this new way of …show more content…
In order to effectively argue, one must establish boundaries (Haber). In this case they are the moral boundaries. Moral confusion is when “the crossing of species boundaries threatens established and important moral categories, producing such unavoidable and irresolvable moral confusion that a precautionary attitude is warranted, justifying a halt to (or at least major restrictions on) such research” (Haber). In other words, this means that if the crossing of species is possible, in this case human and non-human crossing, then even more problems surface. If this were true, if any human hybrids were to ever exist then the morality of it would change very drastically. It would have to take into consideration all aspects of morality for humans and animals. Moral boundaries are a set of universal ideals that everyone agrees are morally acceptable. It provides the limits of the whole argument. In order to effectively argue, the aspect of animal experimentation being moral or not needs to have defined edges. The discussion has to stay within these limits so there can be a universal understanding of the subject. If there is a universal understanding of the issue, then more detailed refutations can be formulated and a possible and more realistic solution can be agreed
If in the results, the costs and harm outweighs the benefits then the experiment should not be conducted. This is trying to use a cost/benefit analysis when discussing animal suffering, which is not possible to do. All animals need to be treated equally. If any amount of suffering could arise then that needs to be taken into consideration. So when faced with questions of morals, the best option is to strive to make science as morally acceptable as possible. “It is not possible to argue that smarter or stronger is better and therefore the use of less intelligent or weaker animals is justified” (Animal Experimentation). This thought process is very common in society. People believe that somehow humans are of a higher comprehension and complexity while animals are seen as weaker and therefore less important. If humans are more important, then they can do whatever they want to these animals. Which means animal experimentation is one hundred percent justifiable. This statement is false because it invalidates all morality (Animal Experimentation). If morality does not exist, then many universal beliefs would be considered null and void. Every belief would have to be reinvented to fit this new way of …show more content…
In order to effectively argue, one must establish boundaries (Haber). In this case they are the moral boundaries. Moral confusion is when “the crossing of species boundaries threatens established and important moral categories, producing such unavoidable and irresolvable moral confusion that a precautionary attitude is warranted, justifying a halt to (or at least major restrictions on) such research” (Haber). In other words, this means that if the crossing of species is possible, in this case human and non-human crossing, then even more problems surface. If this were true, if any human hybrids were to ever exist then the morality of it would change very drastically. It would have to take into consideration all aspects of morality for humans and animals. Moral boundaries are a set of universal ideals that everyone agrees are morally acceptable. It provides the limits of the whole argument. In order to effectively argue, the aspect of animal experimentation being moral or not needs to have defined edges. The discussion has to stay within these limits so there can be a universal understanding of the subject. If there is a universal understanding of the issue, then more detailed refutations can be formulated and a possible and more realistic solution can be agreed