Follow/Fav Ethics of Animal Testing An essay applying utilitarianism to animal testing. I have done this for your class in college and got the perfect score. This is not my own opinion, this was an assignment 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
Years back, while laws were not in its place in order to avoid it, some researchers experimented on animals. The results of such experiments remain to be along with us today. Take insulin, as an example ,, that it was discovered when an Ontario doctor severed the link within the pancreas and also the gastrointestinal tract of any dog.1 Today there are many animals in labs being tested to find cures for everything from cancer to pain killers. In the event the results employ a possibility to help save a large number of lives, as regarding insulin for the people with diabetes, then testing on animals ought to be the right thing to do right? Many people disagree praoclaiming that the suffering of an animal will not be definitely worth saving of lives, particularly if the tests are unsuccessful. They compare the animal’s lives to the people of humans, claiming that it must be not right to test on human orphans. Therefore it should not be ability to test on stray animals. So therein lies the ethical dilemma; is this ability to experiment on animals?
In this particular paper I will examine animal rights from your utilitarians point of view. I will define the foremost points that utilitarianism holds and animal testing. I will 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 own personal feelings on animal experimentation and my conclusions drawn coming from the analysis.
First, utilitarian theory is consequentionalist and stress the ends of an particular action. Additionally it is Hedonistic naturally, which means is is focused on happiness and pleasure, those being the one intrinsic good. A utilitarian considers five factors from the pleasure with the consequences connected with an act, whichever act results in the best pleasure or happiness is a good thing to do after all. John Mill argued that the level of the pleasure is an important consideration in addition. Consider also the difference between act utilitarianism (considering each act individually) and rule utilitarianism (utilizing the consequences of any act universally). On top of that, a contemporary version of utilitarianism, cost-benefit analysis, states that whatever act produces the most money (or saves as much as possible), is that decision that will be made.
Second, animal testing is comprised of any medical test performed upon an animal. Including product testing, like perfume and cleaners, and research for example the link between isolation at a social animal. To analyze animal testing coming from a utilitarian viewpoint we must consider regardless of whether an animal can feel pain, or suffer. We typically will not consider animals being without feeling, this is why we have now laws protecting animals against cruelty. Lots of people disagree about no matter whether locking an animal in a very cage is cruelty or otherwise.
The truth for animal testing Using utilitarianism generally, if testing on animals produces probably the most happiness overall and reduces suffering then it is the ideal option to take. When medical breakthrough are created at the cost of an animal, could be the happiness of those that is often cured in excess of the suffering in the animal who underwent the experiments? Mill would apparently believe that the happiness of someone who has been cured might possibly be more durable and much better then that self gratifying happiness of some animal. Act utilitarianism would look at each instance of animal testing and determine if your consequences are better if ever the animal is tested on than whether or not it were not. Finally, cost-benefit analysis would appear to are in agreement with animal testing because innovations in medicine means money made and saved on heath care treatment. This would produce the most money and could be the better option to take if now you ask to examine or otherwise not.
The truth against animal testing Jeremy Bentham was purely worried about the degree of pleasure produced. You could argue that the volume of suffering an animal might be put through in tests are not worth the sum of suffering that would be reduced if your cure were found. Those who find themselves against animal testing would not experience pleasure then one can believe that those testing the animals would not gain happiness from watching the animal suffer. Therefore anyone can argue that not testing within the animals would indeed reduce suffering and maximize pleasure. Rule utilitarianism applies best here, because then one may think about consequences of everybody testing on animals for any reason. Using that much freedom to testing negative consequences may be apt to occur and consequently banning animal testing would be the best action.