Most of us can easily say that animal testing is evil, barbaric and should be banned, but when in reality, when faced with an actual choice, how many of us would honestly choose to potentially endanger a human’s life over an animal’s life? Animal testing should not be banned for several reasons. Firstly as human beings, it is in our nature to value human lives above animal lives. Whether it is wrong or right all species feel an inexplicable loyalty to their own species, making human life of greater value than animal life. Secondly animal suffering is minimised during animal testing Thirdly, animal testing concerns animals that have been specifically bred for this purpose.
Those who argue this claim human life is of greater value than animal life. In justifying this claim it is usually argued that human beings are the most intelligent, creative and adaptable creatures on the planet and that they have a level of consciousness and self-awareness that exceeds that of any other animal. Relatedly, it is claimed that human consciousness and self-awareness means that human beings have a greater capacity to suffer than any other species. This argument is used to justify the use of animals other than human beings in animal testing. This argument has been put Dario Ringach, who, on September 12, 2012, on the Internet site Speaking of Research, argued, 'A human mother that is contemplating death due to cancer, will suffer beyond her physical pain when thinking that her children will grow up without a her, that she will never see them marry or have children of their own, that she will leave her spouse alone to take care of the family. It is her cognitive abilities that allow her to suffer in ways other animals cannot. Thus, if we agree that suffering is morally relevant, the type of suffering this mother experiences must count too. And because such suffering is enabled to beings with the cognitive abilities that allow them to pose such questions, one must conclude...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document