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...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document