Follow/Fav Ethics of Animal Testing An essay applying utilitarianism to animal testing. I did this to have a class in college and got a great score. This is simply not my opinion, this was an assignment i aced.
Rated: Fiction K – English – Words: 964 – Reviews: 16 – Favs: 2 – Published: 3/27/2004 – Status: Complete – id: 1563663 – Full 3/4 1/2 Expand Tighten The Ethics of Animal Testing
A long time ago, while laws were not in position to stop it, some researchers experimented on animals. The actual outcome of those experiments will still be with us today. Take insulin, for instance, it actually was discovered when an Ontario doctor severed the connection involving the pancreas together with the digestive system of an dog.1 Today there are many animals in labs being tested to locate cures for anything from cancer to pain killers. If your results possess a possibility to avoid wasting plenty of lives, as regarding insulin for people with diabetes, then testing on animals should be the right course of action right? Plenty of people disagree stating that the suffering associated with the animal is just not worth the saving of lives, particularly if the tests are unsuccessful. They compare the animal’s lives for those of humans, claiming that it must be not straight to test on human orphans. Therefore it must not be directly to test on stray animals. So therein lies the ethical dilemma; do you find it right to experiment on animals?
Through this paper I am going to examine animal rights originating from a utilitarians viewpoint. I will define the key points that utilitarianism holds and animal testing. I will explore the cases for and against animal testing using utilitarian reasoning (including Bentham and Mill’s disagreement, act and rule utilitarianism, and expense-benefit analysis). Finally I am going to close with my own, personal feelings on animal experimentation and my conclusions drawn within the analysis.
First, utilitarian theory is consequentionalist and stress the ends of any particular action. It is additionally Hedonistic by nature, meaning is focuses on happiness and pleasure, those being really the only intrinsic good. A utilitarian considers five factors on the pleasure of your consequences of your act, whichever act results in probably the most pleasure or happiness is the best course of action in the end. John Mill argued that the caliber of the pleasure is a crucial consideration also. Consider also the distinction between act utilitarianism (considering each act individually) and rule utilitarianism (using the consequences associated with an act universally). Besides, a contemporary version of utilitarianism, cost-benefit analysis, states that whatever act produces the most money (or saves as much as possible), is often that decision that must be made.
Second, animal testing involves any medical test performed for an animal. Including product testing, like perfume and cleaners, and research similar to the connection between isolation for the social animal. To check animal testing coming from a utilitarian viewpoint we must consider regardless of whether an animal can feel pain, or suffer. We typically usually do not consider animals to generally be without feeling, for this reason we have laws protecting animals against cruelty. A lot of people disagree about whether or not locking an animal inside a cage is cruelty or not.
The actual situation for animal testing Using utilitarianism generally, if testing on animals produces by far the most happiness overall and reduces suffering then its the suitable course of action. When medical breakthrough are designed at the cost of an animal, would be the happiness of those that might be cured in excess of the suffering from the animal who underwent the experiments? Mill would apparently believe that the happiness of anyone who has been cured is going to be longer lasting and much better then a self gratifying happiness of the animal. Act utilitarianism would evaluate each instance of animal testing and figure out generally if the consequences are better in the event the animal is tested on than if this were not. Finally, cost-benefit analysis would may actually accept animal testing because innovations in medicine means money made and saved on heath care treatment. This can produce the most money and is definitely the better course of action if now you ask , to check or not.
The actual situation against animal testing Jeremy Bentham was purely engaged with the degree of pleasure produced. One could argue that the quality of suffering an animal could well be exposed to in tests are not worth the amount of suffering that will be reduced in case a cure were found. Those who find themselves against animal testing would not experience pleasure and one can believe that those testing the animals would not gain happiness from watching the animal suffer. Therefore one may argue that not testing at the animals would indeed reduce suffering and maximize pleasure. Rule utilitarianism applies best here, because then one could evaluate the consequences of everybody testing on animals for any reason. With that much freedom to testing negative consequences might possibly be almost certainly going to occur and thus banning animal testing are the best action.