Animal Experimentation Paper

Frey believes that we must either a) find some feature that makes all humans worthy of greater moral consideration than all animals, or b) we must accept medical experimentation on humans. Is he right ? If so, why?

The use of animals in scientific and medical research has been a subject of ethical debate for many years. Many animal rights groups and anti-vivisectionists believe that animal experimentation is cruel and unnecessary regardless of the purpose or benefit. Many individuals, such as Peter Singer, believe that because animals can experience the ability to suffer, they deserve to have their rights taken into account. Singer claims that the pain that animals may experience is equal to the pain that humans experience. Therefore, if we choose to experiment only on humans, we are stating that our own species is more valuable than the non-human species. This is what he labels Speciesism . He admits that the average human may be worthy of greater moral consideration than the average non-human animal, but that there are human beings that are non-rational, for example, comatose patients or orphans or infants. Therefore, since there is no difference between these marginal cases and non-human animals, then we can’t justify using non-human animals in experimentation. R.G. Frey further supports Singer’s views on non-rational humans. Frey doesn’t necessarily oppose animals being used for research. He believes that the overall good of experimentation outweighs the suffering caused on animals. He claims that what makes the experimentation acceptable is that human life is more valuable. Yet, many humans can live a life that is less valuable than animals, such as comatose patients. So we must then either abandon animal experimentation or allow human experimentation. In my opinion, I do believe that humans are worthy of greater moral consideration. Throughout, this paper I will state many facts on why I support reasons for animal experimentation and why I don‘t entirely agree with these authors. First of all, if we look at the Utilitarian approach, one that R.G Frey believes in, then we must provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. This would make animal experimentation morally acceptable. Most research has provided a decrease in overall suffering to humans and animals. Animal research has been a source for vaccines, cancer therapies, artificial limbs and organs and even new surgical techniques. A lot of the testing has not only helped humans but animals too .Due to veterinary research on animals, we now have flea and tick treatments, vaccines and many medications that also help with animal diseases. This prevents many animals from suffering and allows them to live longer lives. Overall, these benefits outweigh the suffering that animals have had to endure. The pleasure and happiness that has been brought from these medical breakthroughs is greater than the pain that some of these animals have had to undergo. However, this topic only really explains the moral principle on why I believe it would be logical to allow an animal to suffer for experimentation purposes. Another issue, which lies more on equality, is based more on if we considered allowing animals to have the same moral standards as humans. If we gave them the equality that Singer and Frey feel that they deserved, it makes it difficult to determine which situations should be looked at and where to draw the line. Many animals are hunted for fun or eaten for pleasure. If we eliminate experimentation on animals do we also have to stop the right to hunt or serve and eat meat? Do we shut down farms? How far do we take everything because it could create even more disarray than intended. Many believe that it is not only extremely cruel but also that suffering occurs to horses at race tracks. These are still legal and people pay to watch and bet on these races. If we abolish experimentation then do we stop the rest of this cruelty to animals? Singer would say yes, that all of this would have to be put to an immediate stop ,but is it really that easy? I feel that even if you look at evolution, man has had the ability to adapt to our environment better than many other species . It is what nature intended. We are on the top of the food chain. Singer feels that this is classified as Speciesism and that we should immediately stop eating meats. Yet, this isn’t possible for many parts of the world to do. Many humans would suffer from hunger or malnutrition in certain parts of the country. Frey and Singer put marginal cases, such as comatose patients into a category, and compares them to being equal to animals in regards to a rational life or valuable life. However, isn’t Singer making assumptions and generalizing that all human species can survive off of plants? Can he really say that if they eat meat they automatically fall into a category of being a speciesist , when they don’t have a choice. A lot of third world countries don’t have the access or even financial means to be provided with the foods we have. They live in climates where this type of vegetation doesn’t grow. Does he think it is it okay to wipe out some of the human population just because he feels that animals shouldn’t be eaten? Moreover, if we look at that argument on Speciesism, it is hard to not have a bias in regards to our own species. I think that if most humans were put in the situation where they had to chose between saving their child or the animal, they would pick their child. Not only is it an instinct that nature has installed in most parents, but it is also because most of us feel that we are superior to that animal for some of the reasons I‘ve previously stated and will continue to state throughout this paper. Also, I find it hard to believe that most animal rights activists would say “yes” if were asked the well-known question, “If your child or mother was dying, would you still condemn animal experimentation if it were to save them?” Even Peter Singer over the years has changed his outlook after seeing his mother suffer from Alzheimers disease. To take this one step further in relation to experimentation, if we really look at how many animals are being used for research versus the way we use animals in our society, the numbers are fairly low. It is said that every year we eat about 700 times as much meat and fish than the numbers used for research and that doesn‘t even include people who fish or hunt for fun. If the majority of these animals are used or put on our tables for food, it is hard for me to not put things into perspective and say why not use them for research? Also, mice, rats and rodents account for about 80 percent of the animals that are used for biomedical research. Most of these animals spread disease and cause major problems throughout our cities. The majority of these vermin are killed from pest control organizations by being poisoned or trapped. If humans participate in these actions without thinking twice and it also helps to prevent us from spreading further diseases, then how can one not justify using them in animal experimentation. To continue on the topic on why I feel humans deserve greater moral consideration is that we have the ability to reason. We have creative and abstract thought. We have the ability to read and write and experience pleasure and joy. These are traits that animals don’t have. Because we are a more highly developed , our welfare naturally counts for more than animals. We can learn to control our impulses and think about our actions. We can experience guilt and reflect on what we feel is right or wrong. This is what helps our society to build upon achievements or learn from past mistakes and advance. Some individuals may claim animals can experience some of these qualities or can engage in conscious activities, but research shows that even primates, haven’t changed the way they live their lives. Although they may have similarities to humans, they don’t have the ability to adapt to an environment the same way humans do. It is also our social networks that help us to develop norms that we must live by. If we put animals on a level where they have the same rights and laws as we do I think it would cause even more difficult challenges and perplexity in our lifestyle. This further supports my reasoning for why I do not support most experimentation on humans. I think that if we were to allow painful procedures to take place, it could cause chaos amongst our community. This could cause a shift in how humans morally respect one another. If we can subject humans to painful experimentation or trials that may cause harm or negative affects, then would mankind be more accepting of cruelty or rape or murder? Frey argues that many of the moral rules and rights that humans set when discussing this topic are mainly due to fears that we have and the feeling of guilt to using non-human animals. I agree that there may be some truth to that, but that reality is, in order for us to continue with advances in medical research, animals must be involved. We cannot replace the use of animals entirely. For the reasons I’ve stated above, it would be a greater loss to halt medical experimentation. Yet, using humans for this type of research could cause more distress and dysfunction in our society. In addition, I feel that a human’s welfare is more important than an animals due to the fact that we are a more advanced species. I do believe that it is our responsibility and duty to find ways to regulate animal experimentation. We need to make sure we have particular procedures and guidelines that must be strictly followed such as the Animal Act that the UK uses. We should make sure that unnecessary suffering should always be avoided or that pain relief is provided during experiments when possible. We should also reduce the number of animals used when there are other options available. I also believe that we need to make sure that the conditions and living environments for these animals are suitable.