The Ethics on the Morality of Animal Research
In this paper I will discuss the wrongness of animal testing based on the falsification of the biological account of moral status. All sentient creatures, no matter what their biology, matter morally. Animals used in research labs for testing are sentient, therefore they have moral status. In Cohen’s paper, he describes the testing of animals for human benefit to be morally permissible because they do not have human membership (Cohen, p. 94) However, the more important relevance here is that humans and animals are more similar than stated, and that animals can feel pain and pleasure just as humans do. Cohen explains that the important differences in humans and animate life are the morally relevant …show more content…
Proponents of animal research want to argue that the avoidance of animals’ pain is not worth the suffering that humans endure; specifically when some human suffering can be prevented or treated with research using animals. “If a clinical research program will result in some procedure that has significant increases in well-being, then some suffering is justified” (Monaghan on Clinical Research, slide 36). This idea is skewed in animal testing. Yes, some of animal research has gone to benefit many humans and animals, but the fail rate of experiments at the costs of animals’ lives is just as great (Engel 4). The cost-benefit analysis regarding animal research has no good answer. A big problem with trying to defend animal research with the explanation of increasing pleasure for the majority is that during the trial of experimentation we cannot know if the result will be a net increase in wellbeing (Monaghan on Clinical research, slide 37). There is pain and pleasure no matter what the situation, and in neither does pleasure overcome pain. Therefore, according to the sentience view, there is no good justification for animal …show more content…
This may seem absurd, but that is what all the objections point to. If sentience is true regarding the morality of animal research, then experimental testing on any creature with the ability to feel pain, including animals and humans, must be morally impermissible. We cannot accept animal testing without accepting the testing of other creatures that are able to feel the same as them, especially when the benefits do not trump the
In this paper I will discuss the wrongness of animal testing based on the falsification of the biological account of moral status. All sentient creatures, no matter what their biology, matter morally. Animals used in research labs for testing are sentient, therefore they have moral status. In Cohen’s paper, he describes the testing of animals for human benefit to be morally permissible because they do not have human membership (Cohen, p. 94) However, the more important relevance here is that humans and animals are more similar than stated, and that animals can feel pain and pleasure just as humans do. Cohen explains that the important differences in humans and animate life are the morally relevant …show more content…
Proponents of animal research want to argue that the avoidance of animals’ pain is not worth the suffering that humans endure; specifically when some human suffering can be prevented or treated with research using animals. “If a clinical research program will result in some procedure that has significant increases in well-being, then some suffering is justified” (Monaghan on Clinical Research, slide 36). This idea is skewed in animal testing. Yes, some of animal research has gone to benefit many humans and animals, but the fail rate of experiments at the costs of animals’ lives is just as great (Engel 4). The cost-benefit analysis regarding animal research has no good answer. A big problem with trying to defend animal research with the explanation of increasing pleasure for the majority is that during the trial of experimentation we cannot know if the result will be a net increase in wellbeing (Monaghan on Clinical research, slide 37). There is pain and pleasure no matter what the situation, and in neither does pleasure overcome pain. Therefore, according to the sentience view, there is no good justification for animal …show more content…
This may seem absurd, but that is what all the objections point to. If sentience is true regarding the morality of animal research, then experimental testing on any creature with the ability to feel pain, including animals and humans, must be morally impermissible. We cannot accept animal testing without accepting the testing of other creatures that are able to feel the same as them, especially when the benefits do not trump the