Follow/Fav Ethics of Animal Testing An essay applying utilitarianism to animal testing. I have done this for just a class in college and got an amazing score. This is not my personal opinion, this really is 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
In years past, while laws were not established to forestall it, some researchers experimented on animals. The end result of such experiments are still sometimes around today. Take insulin, by way of example, it turned out discovered when an Ontario doctor severed the connection within the pancreas and then the digestive system from a dog.1 Today there are many animals in labs being tested to get cures for everything from cancer to pain killers. Should the results enjoy a possibility in order to save numerous lives, as with regards to insulin for all those with diabetes, then testing on animals needs to be the right option to take right? Lots of individuals disagree stating that the suffering of any animal is simply 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 right to test on human orphans. Therefore it should not be straight to test on stray animals. So therein lies the ethical dilemma; could it be ability to experiment on animals?
With this paper I am going to examine animal rights with a utilitarians viewpoint. I will define the primary 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 price-benefit analysis). Finally I am going to close with my personal feelings on animal experimentation and my conclusions drawn out of the analysis.
First, utilitarian theory is consequentionalist and stress the ends of an particular action. It could be Hedonistic in general, which means that is focuses primarily on happiness and pleasure, those being your only intrinsic good. A utilitarian considers five factors inside pleasure from the consequences associated with an act, whichever act brings about one of the most pleasure or happiness is a good move to make at the end. John Mill argued that the calibre of the pleasure can be a consideration as well. Consider also the difference between act utilitarianism (considering each act individually) and rule utilitarianism (utilizing the consequences of your act universally). Furthermore, a contemporary version of utilitarianism, cost-benefit analysis, states that whatever act produces the most money (or saves as much as possible), is that decision that must be made.
Second, animal testing involves any medical test performed when using animal. Including product testing, like perfume and cleaners, and research including the connection between isolation for the social animal. To examine animal testing from your utilitarian standpoint we have to consider whether or not an animal can feel pain, or suffer. We typically you should not consider animals to end up being without feeling, that is why now we have laws protecting animals against cruelty. Many individuals disagree about regardless of whether locking an animal with a cage is cruelty or otherwise not.
The actual situation for animal testing Using utilitarianism generally, if testing on animals produces the most happiness overall and reduces suffering then its the best move to make. When medical breakthrough are produced at the fee for an animal, could be the happiness of those that will be cured higher than the suffering in the animal who underwent the experiments? Mill would seem to reason that the happiness of anyone who has been cured would be longer lasting and then your self gratifying happiness associated with the animal. Act utilitarianism would look at each instance of animal testing and figure out if your consequences are better should the animal is tested on than if it 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 could produce the most money and could be the better action to take if now you ask to test out or otherwise.
The actual situation against animal testing Jeremy Bentham was purely worried about the total amount of pleasure produced. You can consider that the sum of suffering an animal could well be put through in testing is not worth the volume of suffering that you will find reduced if your cure were found. Individuals who are against animal testing would not experience pleasure the other can think that those testing the animals would not gain happiness from watching your pet suffer. Therefore one may debate that not testing around the animals would indeed reduce suffering and maximize pleasure. Rule utilitarianism applies best here, because then anybody can look into the consequences of everybody testing on animals for any excuse. With this much freedom to testing negative consequences may be more likely to occur therefore banning animal testing are the best action.