Is Animal Testing Morally Acceptable?
Meryssa Hampey
Philosophy 2306-073
Introduction
The issue of whether the testing of animals is morally justifiable is controversial to say the least. Many people believe that animals, because they are simply not at our same level of intelligence, cannot hold any moral standing, while others believe that the simple fact that animals can and do experience pain is as good a reason as any that they have a right to not suffer. However, the testing performed on animals in laboratories, especially those in medicine, have undoubtedly progressed us further much faster than without it. The question stands: is it morally justifiable to subject animals to the suffering that comes with laboratory testing if society as a whole may benefit greatly from it? Under the moral theory of Contractualism, it is.
The Basics of Contractualism
Under Contractualism, or Contractarianism, animals are without a doubt, left out of having a moral standing in …show more content…
As we know, animals need not have any contracts with one another to live in peace. Humans, on the other hand, must have agreements in the form of laws enforced, in most cases to preserve our morality. One reasoning behind the idea that animals do not contain any moral beliefs is the fact that they do not have laws or understand our laws. This is more or less a deciding factor that draws a distinct line between them and us. We, by the rule of Contractualism, cannot form an agreement of what is morally acceptable or not between human and animal; the fact is, humans and animals cannot communicate with each other effectively enough to form an agreement, and animals do not have a capacity to comprehend and follow these agreements. Therefore, animals cannot reciprocate our laws and should not be considered on the same level as humans in that
Meryssa Hampey
Philosophy 2306-073
Introduction
The issue of whether the testing of animals is morally justifiable is controversial to say the least. Many people believe that animals, because they are simply not at our same level of intelligence, cannot hold any moral standing, while others believe that the simple fact that animals can and do experience pain is as good a reason as any that they have a right to not suffer. However, the testing performed on animals in laboratories, especially those in medicine, have undoubtedly progressed us further much faster than without it. The question stands: is it morally justifiable to subject animals to the suffering that comes with laboratory testing if society as a whole may benefit greatly from it? Under the moral theory of Contractualism, it is.
The Basics of Contractualism
Under Contractualism, or Contractarianism, animals are without a doubt, left out of having a moral standing in …show more content…
As we know, animals need not have any contracts with one another to live in peace. Humans, on the other hand, must have agreements in the form of laws enforced, in most cases to preserve our morality. One reasoning behind the idea that animals do not contain any moral beliefs is the fact that they do not have laws or understand our laws. This is more or less a deciding factor that draws a distinct line between them and us. We, by the rule of Contractualism, cannot form an agreement of what is morally acceptable or not between human and animal; the fact is, humans and animals cannot communicate with each other effectively enough to form an agreement, and animals do not have a capacity to comprehend and follow these agreements. Therefore, animals cannot reciprocate our laws and should not be considered on the same level as humans in that