Follow/Fav Ethics of Animal Testing An essay applying utilitarianism to animal testing. I did this to obtain a class in college and got an ideal score. This is simply not my own opinion, this was an assignment that 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
Long ago, while laws were not in its place to protect yourself from it, some researchers experimented on animals. The effects for these experiments continue to be along with us today. Take insulin, to illustrate, it was actually discovered when an Ontario doctor severed the bond within the pancreas as well as the intestinal tract on the dog.1 Today you will find many animals in labs being tested to seek out cures for everything from cancer to pain killers. Generally if the results have got a possibility in order to save countless lives, as in the case of insulin for people with diabetes, then testing on animals ought to be the right thing to do right? A lot of people disagree praoclaiming that the suffering of some animal is not actually worth the saving of lives, especially if the tests are unsuccessful. They compare the animal’s lives to those people of humans, claiming that it must be not straight to test on human orphans. Therefore it must not be ability to test on stray animals. So therein lies the ethical dilemma; might it be directly to experiment on animals?
In that paper I will examine animal rights coming from a utilitarians viewpoint. I will define the major points that utilitarianism holds and animal testing. I am going to explore the cases for and against animal testing using utilitarian reasoning (including Bentham and Mill’s disagreement, act and rule utilitarianism, and cost-benefit analysis). Finally I am going to close with my personal feelings on animal experimentation and my conclusions drawn with the analysis.
First, utilitarian theory is consequentionalist and stress the ends of your particular action. It is additionally Hedonistic in general, meaning is is targeted on happiness and pleasure, those being truly the only intrinsic good. A utilitarian considers five factors inside pleasure with the consequences connected with an act, whichever act brings about one of the most pleasure or happiness is best move to make in fact. John Mill argued that the grade of the pleasure can be a consideration in the process. Consider also the distinction between act utilitarianism (considering each act individually) and rule utilitarianism (using the consequences of your act universally). Also, a contemporary version of utilitarianism, cost-benefit analysis, states that whatever act produces the most money (or saves as much as possible), tends to be that decision that need to be made.
Second, animal testing includes any medical test performed while on an animal. Including product testing, like perfume and cleaners, and research just like the results of isolation on your social animal. To analyze animal testing at a utilitarian standpoint we need to consider whether an animal can feel pain, or suffer. We typically will not consider animals to end up being without feeling, this is why we now have laws protecting animals against cruelty. Many people disagree about regardless of whether locking an animal in a cage is cruelty or otherwise.
The outcome for animal testing Using utilitarianism generally, if testing on animals produces the best happiness overall and reduces suffering then its the correct move to make. When medical breakthrough are fashioned at the expense of an animal, would be the happiness of those that could be cured bigger than the suffering for the animal who underwent the experiments? Mill would manage to argue that the happiness of anyone who has been cured is going to be more durable and better then a self gratifying happiness of an animal. Act utilitarianism would take a look at each instance of animal testing and figure out should the consequences are better if your animal is tested on than whether or not it were not. Finally, cost-benefit analysis would find a way to go along with animal testing because innovations in medicine means money made and saved on medical. This would produce the most money and will be the better course of action if the question is to test or otherwise not.
The actual situation against animal testing Jeremy Bentham was purely engaged with the amount of pleasure produced. You can believe that the amount of suffering an animal will be put through in testing is not worth the quality of suffering that are reduced in case your cure were found. People who find themselves against animal testing would not experience pleasure the other can imagine that those testing the animals would not gain happiness from watching the animal suffer. Therefore one can possibly believe that not testing on your animals would indeed reduce suffering and maximize pleasure. Rule utilitarianism applies best here, because then you can look into the consequences of everybody testing on animals for any reason. Using that much freedom to testing negative consequences is certainly going to occur and for that reason banning animal testing is the best action.