experimentation of animals is a widely contested aspect of medical research. The question posed is: under what conditions, if any, is it morally acceptable to conduct experimental research on non-human animals? Experimental research, for the purpose of this paper, will be defined as the the potential harmful, non-therapeutic research on animals. As a basis for the argument, it is necessary to provide statistics on conducting animal research. Each year more than 100 million animals are killed in the
In Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights, he delivers a harsh criticism of humans and their treatment of animals as their resources rather than beings of equal moral value. He not only condemns the system as a whole which humans use to justify their treatment of animals, but also raises an alternative view justifying his beliefs. In this essay, I will begin by discussing Regan’s portrayal of the moral status of animals and the view that I previously alluded to. Then I will explain Carl Cohen’s
“The Case for Animal Rights”, Tom Regan argues for the total abolition of animal research by saying that animals1 have the right to not be treated as others’ resources. In “The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research”, Carl Cohen encourages animal research because he argues that animals have no rights and that animal research generates huge long term benefits. In this paper, I will first present Regan’s and Cohen’s arguments, and then state what may be Regan’s defenses against Cohen. Regan
Rachael Fryer 12 C Is animal testing in the beauty industry ethically justifiable? Introduction: Animal Testing is defined as the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, especially for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as food or drugs for human consumption. The hypothesis is that animal testing cannot be justified. Justifiable is defined as able to be shown to be right or reasonable. Based on this definition one is able to gather what constitutes
Clement, Grace. “‘Pets or Meat’? Ethics and Domestic Animals.” Journal of Animal Ethics, vol. 1, no. 1, 2011, pp. 46–57. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/janimalethics.1.1.0046. In the article "'Pets or Meat?' Ethics and Domestic Animals," Grace Clement addresses a topic that surfaces in the minds of many: are loveable house pets and the "meat" animals people consume one in the same? If so, why is it morally okay to eat the "meat" animals? Clement describes the similarities between a common
Animal rights, a controversial topic discussed across the nation and responsible for saving and protecting animals. Animal rights is the belief that animals should have certain rights just as humans do. Should animals have a Bill of Rights, the sames rights as humans? Domestic animals should have a Bill of rights for their protection and safety but not with same rights as humans. Such a law will not go against centuries of human culture. Providing domestic animals such as livestock and pets
#1: Regan v. Cohen on Animal Rights & Animal Testing in Biomedical Research In this paper, I will summarize Regan’s view supporting animal rights. Then I will contrast it against Cohen’s stance against the inclusion of animals in the moral sphere which would end animal testing in biomedical research. Finally, I will explain how I believe Regan would defend himself against Cohen’s objections. Regan states that animals should have rights, and claims that the system of animal exploitation is fundamentally
selfish of us to treat the animals of the earth the way we do. Jane Goodall saw the unfair treatment of our cohabitants and was determined to change that. With love in her heart, and wisdom in her mind, Jane set forth the forever change in the world we live in today by helping animals and helping to prevent lab testing. Before Jane Goodall, many inhumane acts were occurring amongst animals all around the world. Goodall has made it known that she doesn’t approve of animal testing when it comes to science
Feral animals and surplus animals are understood as environmental threats. Some impacts are, reduction of biodiversity, economical damage, noise pollution and many more. One major strategy of eradicating these animals is culling. However, culling is complex due to opposing perspectives (for and against). Many may argue that culling is inappropriate because of animal rights, inhumanity and so forth. This leads to a whole range of economical, ecological and socio-cultural controversies. It is important
ABSTRACT Some animals are being used for animal experimentations, which are clinical, epidemiological, and pathological. These investigations remain as the foundation of research on human disease. There are two main agreements about animal testing. Some people are against animal experimentations. According to their view, animal testing is not ethical and animals are not treated in accordance with animal rights. Against this view, some people support animal testing because animal testing is necessary