Medical progress rarely occurs without raising ethical issues. These issues are not limited to the use of emerging technologies or human subjects, but extend to the use of non-human animals in medical research. While there is growing concern about the use of animals in research, it seems that supporters and critics of animal rights have focused on the wrong question. That is, whether it is ethically justifiable to use animals as subjects in research if they experience human-like qualities such as pain. Instead of arguing for the affirmative or negative for this question, I focus my attention on whether the question matters. In other words, why do human beings have to question the moral status of animals at all to determine the use of animals
…show more content…
However, contrary to the absolute dominionism argument, life is not about having dominion over non-human animals. While some people use the Bible to support this claim, the problem is that supporters only take one passage from the Bible. If a person wants to use the argument that God gave humans dominion over animals, that person has to look at all of the verses about human beings’ relationship to non-human animals within the Bible. By reading closely one will see that there are verses that depict humans as shepherds and some that depict humans as having no more importance than non-human animals. Take for example, Ecclesiastes 3:19-20, “for the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.” Now, I use this verse to illustrate the importance of placing information in its proper context and to criticize the absolute dominionism’s position that human beings can do whatever they want to non-human animals. Human animals are not superior to non-human animals. It is true that human beings can walk upright, file taxes, use technology to be more efficient and that human brains are structurally different. But, not every non-human animal goes to war, nor do non-human animals change the environment to the point of making other living organisms go extinct, or take more than they need from the environment, or lock each other in cages. So, if a person wants to claim that humans are superior to non-human animals, I ask, superior in what
However, contrary to the absolute dominionism argument, life is not about having dominion over non-human animals. While some people use the Bible to support this claim, the problem is that supporters only take one passage from the Bible. If a person wants to use the argument that God gave humans dominion over animals, that person has to look at all of the verses about human beings’ relationship to non-human animals within the Bible. By reading closely one will see that there are verses that depict humans as shepherds and some that depict humans as having no more importance than non-human animals. Take for example, Ecclesiastes 3:19-20, “for the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.” Now, I use this verse to illustrate the importance of placing information in its proper context and to criticize the absolute dominionism’s position that human beings can do whatever they want to non-human animals. Human animals are not superior to non-human animals. It is true that human beings can walk upright, file taxes, use technology to be more efficient and that human brains are structurally different. But, not every non-human animal goes to war, nor do non-human animals change the environment to the point of making other living organisms go extinct, or take more than they need from the environment, or lock each other in cages. So, if a person wants to claim that humans are superior to non-human animals, I ask, superior in what