Nothing's Wrong With Trying How much is a human life worth when compared to an animals?
Most people agree that animals have at least some moral status — that is why it is wrong to abuse pets or needlessly hurt other animals.
This alone represents a shift from a past view where animals had no moral status and treating an animal well was more about maintaining human standards of dignity than respecting any innate rights of the animal. In modern times, the question has shifted from whether animals have moral status to how much moral status they have and what rights come with that status.
The strongest pro animal rights answer to this question would be that non-human animals have exactly the same moral status as humans and are entitled to equal treatment. The ethicists who endorse this position do not mean that animals are entitled to the very same treatment as humans; arguing that animals should have the right to vote or hold office is clearly absurd.
The claim is that animals should be afforded the same level of respectful treatment as humans; in short, we should not have the right to kill animals, force them into our service, or otherwise treat them merely as means to further our own goals. One common form of this argument claims that moral status comes from the capacity to suffer or to enjoy life.
In respect to his capacity, many animals are no different than humans.
They can feel pain and experience pleasure. Therefore, they should have the same moral status and deserve equal treatment. However, we look upon past examples of this behavior as morally condemnable.
Being of a particular race or gender does not give one any grounds for declaring outsiders to be of a lower moral status. Many animal rights advocates argue similarly—that just because we are human is not sufficient grounds to declare animals less morally significant. The first step in making that argument is to show that humans are more important than animals.
Below, I will outline one of the more common arguments used to reach this conclusion. Some philosophers advocate the idea of a moral community. Roughly speaking, this is a group of individuals who all share certain traits in common.
By sharing these traits, they belong to a particular moral community and thus take on certain responsibilities toward each other and assume specific rights. Although a moral community could theoretically include animals, it frequently does not.
The human moral community, for instance, is often characterized by a capacity to manipulate abstract concepts and by personal autonomy. Since most animals do not have the cognitive capabilities of humans and also do not seem to possess full autonomy animals do not rationally choose to pursue specific life goalsthey are not included in the moral community.
Once animals have been excluded from the moral community, humans have only a limited obligation towards them; on this argument, we certainly would not need to grant animals all normal human rights.
If animals do not have the same rights as humans, it becomes permissible to use them for research purposes. Under this view, the ways in which experimentation might harm the animal are less morally significant than the potential human benefits from the research.
One problem with this type of argument is that many humans themselves do not actually fulfill the criteria for belonging to the human moral community.
Both infants and the mentally handicapped frequently lack complex cognitive capacities, full autonomy, or even both of these traits. Are those individuals outside the human moral community? Do they lack fundamental human rights and should we use them for experimentation?
One philosophical position actually accepts those consequences and argues that those humans have the exact same rights or lack of rights as non-human animals.
However, most people are uncomfortable with that scenario and some philosophers have put forth a variety of reasons to include all humans in the human moral community. In fact, some of them the infants will surely meet all of the criteria in the future.Regan further says, for example, that "animal [experimentation] is morally wrong no matter how much humans may benefit because the animal's basic right has been infringed.
Risks are not morally transferable to those who do not choose to take them" (qtd. in Orlans 26). Harmful Testing on Animals is Wrong In American society, many groups and organizations are debating whether or not animal testing should be banned. Some people believe that there are reasons why animal testing should be done.
Against Animal Testing Essay. definitely against animal testing because it is cruel! It is morally profligate to torment animals for our own benefits. These animals, who cannot defend themselves against abuse, are legally imprisoned and exploited. Every single day a human being talks about his or her rights.
- Animal Testing Using Animals for testing is wrong and should be banned. They should be entitled to the rights we have. Every day humans are using defenseless animals for cruel and most often useless tests.
The animals cannot fight for themselves therefore we must. There should be stronger laws to protect them from laboratory experiments. The different types of animal testing and why they are morally wrong Animal testing is cruel and an inhumane way to torture animals for mankinds own benefit.
There have been millions of animals that have suffered a vicious, painful death in the name of research.
However, many people believe that animal testing is justified because the animals are sacrificed to make products safer for human use and consumption.
The problem with this reasoning is that the animals' safety, well-being, and quality of life is .