For consequentialist the ends can justify the means but for me they may be vindicated under certain circumstances, but otherwise they do not. In the following discussion I shall use the two moral dilemmas, Euthanasia and Animal Testing, to support my claim.
Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide (dying), doctor-assisted dying (suicide), and more loosely termed mercy killing, means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering .In this section, I shall examine euthanasia and I will discuss if I believe this topic to be justified. The procedures writers take to defining euthanasia are different methods; this is because there are two sides to this argument, …show more content…
I will express this through three points and examples I have built on. However first we will examine animal testing and the two types I shall be conflicting. A test where a live animal is expected to endure anguish or lasting harm due to any scientific experiment is known as animal testing and the two types I will differ are medical testing and cosmetic testing. The intent for both types of animal testing is to use the animal to determine how a particular product would react to a human being. In the case of cosmetic testing, the focus is enhancing human appearance and testing sometimes injurious chemicals into animals is a method to obtain this. Its purpose is, in general, to test for toxicity and to certify no damage is to come to a person’s eyes and flesh. Whilst cosmetic testing has a purpose of helping the human race ‘looking good’, medical testing has the goal of maintaining it alive. Those in favour of animal experiments say that the good done to human beings outweighs the harm done to animals. This is a consequentialist argument because it looks at the consequences of the actions under consideration . Others, namely deontologists, have argued that it is morally and ethically wrong in both cases. I will refer to one famous philosopher as an example. Immanuel Kant acknowledged animal pain but still believed that they “are not self-conscious and are …show more content…
This can include:
• skin and eye irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed onto the shaved skin or dripped into the eyes of restrained rabbits without any pain relief
• repeated force-feeding studies lasting weeks or months to look for signs of general illness or specific health hazards such as cancer or birth defects; and
• Widely condemned "lethal dose" tests, in which animals are forced to swallow large amounts of a test chemical to determine the dose that causes death.
This serves no necessary purpose thus it is not acceptable. At least the human race has use of its work when animal testing is carried out; cosmetic testing serves the goal of beauty and, therefore, it does not truly have a valid reason to commit such acts as alternatives, such as the ones mentioned above, are acknowledged. So the ends in this scenario (improving Homo sapiens appearances), does not justify the means (infecting animals with chemicals that can consequently lead to
Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide (dying), doctor-assisted dying (suicide), and more loosely termed mercy killing, means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering .In this section, I shall examine euthanasia and I will discuss if I believe this topic to be justified. The procedures writers take to defining euthanasia are different methods; this is because there are two sides to this argument, …show more content…
I will express this through three points and examples I have built on. However first we will examine animal testing and the two types I shall be conflicting. A test where a live animal is expected to endure anguish or lasting harm due to any scientific experiment is known as animal testing and the two types I will differ are medical testing and cosmetic testing. The intent for both types of animal testing is to use the animal to determine how a particular product would react to a human being. In the case of cosmetic testing, the focus is enhancing human appearance and testing sometimes injurious chemicals into animals is a method to obtain this. Its purpose is, in general, to test for toxicity and to certify no damage is to come to a person’s eyes and flesh. Whilst cosmetic testing has a purpose of helping the human race ‘looking good’, medical testing has the goal of maintaining it alive. Those in favour of animal experiments say that the good done to human beings outweighs the harm done to animals. This is a consequentialist argument because it looks at the consequences of the actions under consideration . Others, namely deontologists, have argued that it is morally and ethically wrong in both cases. I will refer to one famous philosopher as an example. Immanuel Kant acknowledged animal pain but still believed that they “are not self-conscious and are …show more content…
This can include:
• skin and eye irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed onto the shaved skin or dripped into the eyes of restrained rabbits without any pain relief
• repeated force-feeding studies lasting weeks or months to look for signs of general illness or specific health hazards such as cancer or birth defects; and
• Widely condemned "lethal dose" tests, in which animals are forced to swallow large amounts of a test chemical to determine the dose that causes death.
This serves no necessary purpose thus it is not acceptable. At least the human race has use of its work when animal testing is carried out; cosmetic testing serves the goal of beauty and, therefore, it does not truly have a valid reason to commit such acts as alternatives, such as the ones mentioned above, are acknowledged. So the ends in this scenario (improving Homo sapiens appearances), does not justify the means (infecting animals with chemicals that can consequently lead to