Follow/Fav Ethics of Animal Testing An essay applying utilitarianism to animal testing. I did so this for just a class in college and got a superb score. This is simply not my own opinion, this had been an assignment that we 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
Years back, while laws were not on hand for preventing it, some researchers experimented on animals. The effects of these experiments remain around today. Take insulin, for instance, it has been discovered when an Ontario doctor severed the bond in between the pancreas plus the gastrointestinal tract of an dog.1 Today you can still find many animals in labs being tested to find cures for everything from cancer to pain killers. If your results have a very good possibility to avoid wasting a great number of lives, as with regards to insulin for everyone with diabetes, then testing on animals needs to be the right course of action right? Many individuals disagree saying that the suffering of the animal is certainly not worth the saving of lives, especially if the tests are unsuccessful. They compare the animal’s lives to those of humans, claiming that it is not straight to test on human orphans. Therefore it really should not be ability to test on stray animals. So therein lies the ethical dilemma; is it straight to experiment on animals?
In this particular paper I am going to examine animal rights through a utilitarians viewpoint. I will define the major 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 will close with my feelings on animal experimentation and my conclusions drawn through the analysis.
First, utilitarian theory is consequentionalist and stress the ends of a particular action. It is also Hedonistic in nature, which means that is concentrates on happiness and pleasure, those being truly the only intrinsic good. A utilitarian considers five factors while in the pleasure within the consequences associated with an act, whichever act brings about just about the most pleasure or happiness is the greatest thing to do all things considered. John Mill argued that the level of the pleasure is an important consideration in addition. Consider even the difference between act utilitarianism (considering each act individually) and rule utilitarianism (using the consequences of an act universally). Additionally, a contemporary version of utilitarianism, cost-benefit analysis, states that whatever act produces the most money (or saves as much as possible), is the fact that decision that can be made.
Second, animal testing is comprised of any medical test performed when using animal. Including product testing, like perfume and cleaners, and research just like the outcomes of isolation on your social animal. To evaluate animal testing through a utilitarian viewpoint we need to consider no matter if an animal can feel pain, or suffer. We typically will not consider animals to end up being without feeling, for this reason we now have laws protecting animals against cruelty. Some people disagree about whether locking an animal at a cage is cruelty or maybe not.
The case for animal testing Using utilitarianism generally, if testing on animals produces by far the most happiness overall and reduces suffering then its the correct action to take. When medical breakthrough are designed at the cost of an animal, would be the happiness of people who is often cured over the suffering on the animal who underwent the experiments? Mill would may actually believe that the happiness of somebody who has been cured might be more durable and much better then that self gratifying happiness connected with an animal. Act utilitarianism would evaluate each instance of animal testing and determine in the event the consequences are better should the animal is tested on than in the event it were not. Finally, cost-benefit analysis would appear to concur with animal testing because innovations in medicine means money made and saved on medical care. This certainly will produce the most money and include the better action to take if now you ask to examine or perhaps not.
The actual situation against animal testing Jeremy Bentham was purely concerned about the amount of pleasure produced. One could reason that the quality of suffering an animal could well be exposed to in tests are not worth the sum of suffering that could be reduced should a cure were found. Those who are against animal testing would not experience pleasure then one can feel that those testing the animals would not gain happiness from watching your pet suffer. Therefore anyone can debate that not testing about the animals would indeed reduce suffering and maximize pleasure. Rule utilitarianism applies best here, because then one can check out the consequences of everyone testing on animals for any excuse. With that much freedom to testing negative consequences might be apt to occur and as a consequence banning animal testing would be the best action.