Ethics and Animal Testing

Mehdi Rabiee

Professor McFadden

English 302

29 October 2014

Ethics and Animal Testing

        In all matters, including medicine, the comfort and prosperity of the human race comes before anything else. This is the justification for the use of nonhuman animal testing in medicine. Of course, this argument brings issues into play that are both ethical and professional and need exploring before a definitive justification can be given. Animals have rights. This is a statement that very few people will disagree with. Animal persecution as an end to itself is just wrong and I really can’t imagine anyone saying or thinking otherwise. The real ethical question comes when humanity can benefit from barbarism committed against an animal.

        As far as life on this planet goes, we appear to be at the peak of creation. Though we have only been here for less than the blink of an eye, as far as our small planet is concerned, we have achieved heights unparalleled by any species before us. Because of this, we have looked at the rest of existence as lesser than us, and, therefore, here for our use. This view of superiority has begun to diminish only very lately. The first reason for this elevated respect for nonhuman animals comes from the same source as our concern for our fellow human beings: compassion. As a species, humans have, for whatever reason, developed the ability to analyze ourselves in the place of other things we observe. While this ability is strongest when dealing with other humans, it is even possible to do this with nonhumans.

        This is, of course, followed by an argument as to why nonhuman animals do have rights. Peter Singer, a professor in bioethics, is believed by some to have begun the modern animal rights movements with his writings. In his book “Animal Rights and Human Obligations,” Singer illustrated animal rights as the next logical step to follow those against racism and sexism. He describes our current state as a speciesism, where we have decided that we are superior to animals for no better reason than any discrimination within our own human race has ever had (215-226).

        Ideologies such as these lead to the formation of animal rights organizations. Probably the most well known animal rights group is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). This organization is against everything from animal testing, to meat eating, and even pet owning. On the “Frequently Asked Questions” section of their website, they even speak in support of organizations such as the Animal Liberation Front, an organization that resorts to destruction of property and vandalism in service of the cause.

Overall, there are sufficient numbers of viewpoints on the Internet of organizations against animal testing. All of them operate on the basic stance that we shouldn’t cause harm to animals, and even include the argument that animal testing doesn’t work.

        Animal testing in medicine is performed for many reasons. The most obvious question it answers is “does it work?” This is where the term “being the guinea pig” came from.  It should be obvious that before a new medicine or a new medical procedure is performed regularly, it is a good idea to make sure it is based on valid theory. Another reason for animal testing is for safety. It doesn’t matter how smart someone is, or how simple the procedure is, many times something is overlooked before being carried out. Basically, it is always a good idea to assume there is going to be at least one, if not many, things that can easily go wrong, and so it is best to get all of those unexpected problems out of the way before humans begin to be treated.