Follow/Fav Ethics of Animal Testing An essay applying utilitarianism to animal testing. I did this for one class in college and got an ideal score. This is not my personal opinion, this became 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
A long time ago, while laws were not on hand to circumvent it, some researchers experimented on animals. The outcome these experiments still exist around today. Take insulin, as an example, it turned out discovered when an Ontario doctor severed the connection in between the pancreas together with the gastrointestinal system to a dog.1 Today there are many animals in labs being tested to search for cures for anything from cancer to pain killers. If for example the results employ a possibility in order to save countless lives, as in the case of insulin for the people with diabetes, then testing on animals ought to be the right course of action right? Plenty of people disagree stating that the suffering associated with an animal is not definitely worth the saving of lives, especially if the tests are unsuccessful. They compare the animal’s lives to the people of humans, claiming that it is not ability to test on human orphans. Therefore it should not be right to test on stray animals. So therein lies the ethical dilemma; is it directly to experiment on animals?
Through this paper I am going to examine animal rights coming from a utilitarians viewpoint. I will define the primary 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 will close with my personal feelings on animal experimentation and my conclusions drawn with the analysis.
First, utilitarian theory is consequentionalist and stress the ends on the particular action. It is also Hedonistic in nature, which means that is concentrates on happiness and pleasure, those being really the only intrinsic good. A utilitarian considers five factors inside the pleasure on the consequences of act, whichever act leads to some of the most pleasure or happiness is a good thing to do at the end. John Mill argued that the calibre of the pleasure is an important consideration also. Consider even the difference between act utilitarianism (considering each act individually) and rule utilitarianism (utilizing the consequences of the act universally). In addition, a contemporary version of utilitarianism, cost-benefit analysis, states that whatever act produces the most money (or saves the most money), is that often 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 much like the results isolation over a social animal. To check animal testing at a utilitarian point of view we have to consider whether an animal can feel pain, or suffer. We typically do not consider animals to become without feeling, that is why we certainly have laws protecting animals against cruelty. Plenty of people disagree about if locking an animal within a cage is cruelty or perhaps not.
The case for animal testing Using utilitarianism generally, if testing on animals produces some of the most happiness overall and reduces suffering then its the appropriate option to take. When medical breakthrough are intended at the cost of an animal, certainly is the happiness of those people who may be cured greater than the suffering of the animal who underwent the experiments? Mill would apparently consider that the happiness of somebody who has been cured might be longer lasting and then an self gratifying happiness associated with the animal. Act utilitarianism would take a look at each instance of animal testing and figure out in the event the consequences are better when the animal is tested on than if this were not. Finally, cost-benefit analysis would manage to accept animal testing because innovations in medicine means money made and saved on healthcare. This would produce as much as possible and may be the better option to take if now you ask , to test out or otherwise.
The scenario against animal testing Jeremy Bentham was purely worried about the total amount of pleasure produced. You can believe that the quantity of suffering an animal might be put through in testing is not worth the level of suffering that could be reduced should a cure were found. People who find themselves against animal testing would not experience pleasure and something can believe that those testing the animals would not gain happiness from watching the animal suffer. Therefore one could believe that not testing in the animals would indeed reduce suffering and maximize pleasure. Rule utilitarianism applies best here, because then anyone can look into the consequences of everyone testing on animals for any reason. With the much freedom to testing negative consequences could be apt to occur and as a consequence banning animal testing would be the best action.
