Animal experimentation has participated a vital role in biomedical research throughout history, however for centuries it has also been an issue of heated public and philosophical discussion. While there are countless historical overviews of animal experimentation in specific areas and time spans, and a minority on the ethical controversy, there is presently no inclusive review article on the animal research, the communal controversy surrounding it, and the appeal of various historical moral perspectives on animal experimentation. Animal studies in science, morals and social inferences from a historical understanding. It is significant to thoroughly evaluate present principles and practises in animal testing to understand the past. Animal experimentation
…show more content…
Anaesthetics weren’t invented, therefore the experiments conducted in harsh conditions would be excruciating to the criminals. In addition, physicians in ancient Greece had the same morals when it came to animal experimentation and human experimentation, although this was done secretly, it shows us that physicians prefer human experimentation rather than animal experimentation. Could this be because human experimentation is far more accurate than animal interpretations? Live experiments for most ancient Greeks did not raise any moral questions. They granted a higher position in the scala naturae (“the chain of being”) because of their anthropomorphic deities, which mainly consisted power and wisdom. The hierarchy was strict, where all non-living and living things from minerals from the gods, were ranked in the position of their proximity. This view represents that humans have always been the superior beings, this influenced and underlined the Judeo-Christian perspective of human control all over nature in the middle ages the most influential Christian theologians, Augustine of Hippo (IV century) and Thomas Aquinas (XIII Century). Augustine had the view that animals were a part of the natural world to serve humans. (as much as the “sky, water and earth”) there were no obligations towards humankind. On the other hand, Thomas Aquinas view was the opposite, the mistreatment of another person’s animal would be sinful, this did not sympathise animals but for the owner’s possession of the animal. Brutality towards animals was nonetheless criticised by Thomas Aquinas, as this could be responsible for the development of actions and feelings towards humans. Also, for this theologian, one can love illogical creatures for the sake of charity the love of God and the benefit of fellow humans. On the other hand, people in the 21st century sympathise for the animals
Anaesthetics weren’t invented, therefore the experiments conducted in harsh conditions would be excruciating to the criminals. In addition, physicians in ancient Greece had the same morals when it came to animal experimentation and human experimentation, although this was done secretly, it shows us that physicians prefer human experimentation rather than animal experimentation. Could this be because human experimentation is far more accurate than animal interpretations? Live experiments for most ancient Greeks did not raise any moral questions. They granted a higher position in the scala naturae (“the chain of being”) because of their anthropomorphic deities, which mainly consisted power and wisdom. The hierarchy was strict, where all non-living and living things from minerals from the gods, were ranked in the position of their proximity. This view represents that humans have always been the superior beings, this influenced and underlined the Judeo-Christian perspective of human control all over nature in the middle ages the most influential Christian theologians, Augustine of Hippo (IV century) and Thomas Aquinas (XIII Century). Augustine had the view that animals were a part of the natural world to serve humans. (as much as the “sky, water and earth”) there were no obligations towards humankind. On the other hand, Thomas Aquinas view was the opposite, the mistreatment of another person’s animal would be sinful, this did not sympathise animals but for the owner’s possession of the animal. Brutality towards animals was nonetheless criticised by Thomas Aquinas, as this could be responsible for the development of actions and feelings towards humans. Also, for this theologian, one can love illogical creatures for the sake of charity the love of God and the benefit of fellow humans. On the other hand, people in the 21st century sympathise for the animals