Is it ethical, in a case like this, to conduct medical research on animals, who will presumably suffer and die as a result? Carrying out of medical research on animals has been one of the ways, widely used to find a solution to some diseases, and also to test the effectiveness of drugs before administered it to human being. Many of this medical research has brought a huge success, preventing or limiting the causalities of many diseases such as polio and smallpox. Meanwhile, carrying out medical research on animals has also be a subject of debate, raised ethical concern and generated many ethical questions, such as; do animals has right? do they suffer pains? Furthermore, some philosophers, as well as their school of thought, have individual
…show more content…
He claimed that neither pain nor suffering is the major issue for consideration when it comes to animal rights, but the system that place human as a superior being over nonhuman animal. According to Regan “What 's wrong — fundamentally wrong — with the way animals are treated isn 't the details that vary from case to case. It 's the whole system. The forlornness of the veal calf is pathetic, heart wrenching; the pulsing pain of the chimp with electrodes planted deep in her brain is repulsive; the slow, tortuous death of the raccoon caught in the leg hold trap is agonizing. But what is wrong isn 't the pain, isn 't the suffering, isn 't the deprivation. These compound what 's wrong. Sometimes - often - they make it much, much worse. But they are not the fundamental wrong. The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us — to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money. Once we accept this view of animals - as our resources - the rest is as predictable as it is regrettable.” (Regan, 1985). Regan implies that if system had not place human as a superior being over animals, pain, suffering, exploitation would not have been an issue of contention. He also argues that in
He claimed that neither pain nor suffering is the major issue for consideration when it comes to animal rights, but the system that place human as a superior being over nonhuman animal. According to Regan “What 's wrong — fundamentally wrong — with the way animals are treated isn 't the details that vary from case to case. It 's the whole system. The forlornness of the veal calf is pathetic, heart wrenching; the pulsing pain of the chimp with electrodes planted deep in her brain is repulsive; the slow, tortuous death of the raccoon caught in the leg hold trap is agonizing. But what is wrong isn 't the pain, isn 't the suffering, isn 't the deprivation. These compound what 's wrong. Sometimes - often - they make it much, much worse. But they are not the fundamental wrong. The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us — to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money. Once we accept this view of animals - as our resources - the rest is as predictable as it is regrettable.” (Regan, 1985). Regan implies that if system had not place human as a superior being over animals, pain, suffering, exploitation would not have been an issue of contention. He also argues that in