-
THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN ANIMAL
TESTING
Animals have a right
not to be harmed.
POINT
:The
differences
between
us
and
other
vertebrates
are
a
matter
of
degree
rather
than
kind.
Not only do they closely resemble us anatomically
and physiologically, but so too do they
behave in ways which seem to convey
meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express
fear of a
tormentor, and appear to take
pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone
who has observed the
behaviour
of
a
pet
dog
on
hearing
the
word“walk”.
Our
reasons
for
believing
that
our
fellow
humans
are capable of experiencing feelings like
ourselves can surely only be that they resemble
us both in appearance and behaviour (we
cannot read their minds). Thus any animal sharing
our
anatomical, physiological, and
behavioural characteristics is surely likely to
have feelings like us.
If we accept as
true for sake of argument, that all humans have a
right not to be harmed, simply by
virtue of existing as a being of moral
worth, then we must ask what makes animals so
different. If
animals can feel what we
feel, and suffer as we suffer, then to
discriminate merely on the arbitrary
difference of belonging to a different
species, is analogous to discriminating on the
basis of any
other morally arbitrary
characteristic, such as race or sex. If sexual and
racial moral discrimination
is wrong,
then so too is specieism.
COUNTERPOINT
:Animals do not
have such a right not to be harmed; even if they
are similar to
humans
in
terms
of
their
feelings
(that
opposition
does
not
concede)
this
right
is
impossible
to
argue for. The right of a human not to
be harmed is a part of a quid pro quo that we will
also not
do harm to others. Animals are
unable to engage in such a contract either to us
or to other animals.
Animals are not
about to stop hunting other animals because the
animal that is hunted feel’s pain
when
it
is
caught
and
it
even
if
animal
experimentation
was
to
be
ended
it
is
unlikely
that
humanity would stop
killing animals either for food, to prevent
overpopulation or by accident all
of
which would have to be the case if animals feeling
of pleasure and pain and resulting rights had
to be taken into account.
Animal research necessitates
significant harm to the animals involved.
POINT
:Animal research, by
its very nature necessitates harm to the animals.
Even if they are not
made to suffer as
part of the experiment, the vast majority of
animals used, must be killed at the
conclusion
of
the
experiment.
With
115
million
animals
being
used
in
the
status
quo
this
is
no
small
issue.
Even
if
we
were
to
vastly
reduce
animal
experimentation,
releasing
domesticated
animals into the wild, would be a death
sentence, and it hardly seems realistic to think
that many
behaviourally abnormal
animals, often mice or rats, might be readily
moveable into the pet
is
prima
fasciae
obvious,
that
it
is
not
in
the
interest
of
the
animals
involved
to
be
killed,
or
harmed
to
such
an
extent
that
such
killing
might
seem
merciful.
Even
if
the
opposition
counterargument,
that animals lack the capacity to truly suffer, is
believed, research should none
the less
be banned in order to prevent the death of
millions of animals.
COUNTERPOINT
:Firstly, due to
our larger and more sophisticated brains, one
would expect the
average human to have
a great many more interests than any animal, for
those interests to be more
complex
and
interconnected,
and
for
there
to
be
a
greater
capacity
for
reflection
and
comprehension
of
the
satisfaction
gleaned
from
the
realisation
of
such
interests.
Thus,
we
can
ascribe greater value to the life of a
human than an animal, and thus conclude there to
be less harm
in painlessly killing an
animal than a human. Secondly, to the extent that
research on animals is of
benefit to
humans, it is thus permissible to conduct
experiments requiring euthanasia of the animal
subjects.
Research can be
done effectively without experimenting on living
creature.
POINT
:As
experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop
using animals for experiments.
But
apart from it being morally wrong practically we
will never know how much we will be able
to advance without animal
experimentation if we never stop
experimenting on animals. Animal
research has been the historical gold
standard, and in the case of some chemical
screening tests,
was for many years, by
many western states, required by law before a
compound could be released
on sale.
Science and technology has moved faster than
research protocols however, and so there is
no
longer
a
need
for
animals
to
be
experimented
on.
We
now
know
the
chemical
properties
of
most substances, and powerful computers
allow us to predict the outcome of chemical
interactions.
Experimenting
on
live
tissue
culture
also
allows
us
to
gain
insight
as
to
how
living
cells
react
when
exposed to different substances, with no animals
required. Even human skin leftover from
operations provides an effective medium
for experimentation, and being human, provides a
more
reliable
guide
to
the
likely
impact
on
a
human
subject.
The
previous
necessity
of
the
use
of
animals is
no longer a good excuse for continued use of
animals for research. We would still retain
all the benefits that previous animal
research has brought us but should not engage in
any more.
Thus modern research has no
excuse for using animals.
COUNTERPOINT
:Most developed
countries, including the United States and the
member-states
of the European Union,
have regulations and laws which require the
research methods that do not
involve
animal models should be used wherever they would
produce equally accurate results. In
other
words,
scientists
are
barred
from
using
animals
in
research
where
non-animal
methods
would be just as effective.
Further,
research
animals
are
extremely
expensive
to
breed,
house
and
care
for.
Developed
countries have
very strict laws governing the welfare of animals
used in research; obtaining the
training
and
expert
advice
required
to
comply
with
these
laws
is
costly.
As
a
result,
academic
institutions
and
medical
or
pharmaceutical
businesses
function
under
constant
pressure
to
find
viable
alternatives
to
using
animals
in
research.
Researchers
have
a
strong
motive
to
use
alternatives to animal models wherever
possible.
If
we
ban
animal
research
even
if
research
advances
continue
we
will
never
know
how
much
further and faster that
research could have gone with the aid of
experiments on animals. Animal
research
conducted today produces higher quality results
than alternative research methodologies,
and
is
thus
it
is
likely
necessary
for
it
to
remain
in
order
for
us
to
enjoy
the
rate
of
scientific
advancement we
have become used to in recent years.[1]Precisely
because we never know where
the
next
big
breakthrough
is
going
to
come,
we
do
not
want
to
be
narrowing
research
options.
Instead,
all
options
-
computer
models,
tissue
cultures,
microdosing
and
animal
experiments
-
should be explored, making
it more likely that there will be a breakthrough.
Some groups of people have less
capacity for suffering than most animals
POINT
:It
is
possible
to
conceive
of
human
persons
almost
totally
lacking
in
a
capacity
for
suffering, or indeed a
capacity to develop and possess interests. Take
for example a person in a
persistent
vegetative state, or a person born with the most
severe of cognitive impairments.
We
can
take
three
possible
stances
toward
such
persons
within
this
debate.
Firstly
we
could
experiment on animals, but not such
persons. This would be a morally inconsistent and
specieist
stance to adopt, and as such
unsatisfactory. We could be morally consistent,
and experiment on
both animals and such
persons. Common morality suggests that it would be
abhorrent to conduct
potentially
painful
medical
research
on
the
severely
disabled,
and
so
this
stance
seems
equally
unsatisfactory.
Finally
we
could
maintain
moral
consistency
and
avoid
experimenting
on
the
disabled,
by
adopting
the
stance
of
experimenting
on
neither
group,
thus
prohibiting
experimentation upon animals.
COUNTERPOINT
:We
do
not
need
to
justify
the
moral
value
of
severely
cognitively
disabled
persons, although
if we wanted to, we could invoke notions of
kinship, and family as providing a
justification
for
acting
in
an
apparently
specieist
,
it
is
sufficient
to
highlight
the
point,
that
experimenting
on
humans
of
any
cognitive
function,
carries
with
it
certain
negative
externalities. Such persons are likely
to have relatives who would be harmed by the
knowledge
that their loved ones are
being used in medical experiments for example.
Even in the case of such
a person who
lacks any relatives, broader society and disabled
rights groups could be harmed by a
policy that allows treating some
disabled persons differently to the rest of our
moral community.
Such
externalities
would
make
experimenting
on
animals,
rather
than
such
persons,
both
preferable and morally consistent.
Would
send
a
positive
social
message,
increasing
animal
welfare
rights
more
generally
in
society
POINT
:Most
countries
have
laws
restricting
the
ways
in
which
animals
can
be
treated.
These
would ordinarily prohibit treating
animals in the manner that animal research
laboratories claim is
necessary
for
their
research.
Thus
legal
exceptions
such
as
the
1986
Animals
(Scientific
Procedures) Act
in the UK exist to protect these organisations,
from what would otherwise be a
criminal
offense. This creates a clear moral tension, as
one group within society is able to inflect
what to any other group would be
illegal suffering and cruelty toward animals. If
states are serious
about persuading
people against cock fighting, dancing bears, and
the simple maltreatment of pets
and
farm animals, then such goals would be enhanced by
a more consistent legal position about
the treatment of animals by everyone in
society.
COUNTERPOINT
:We do
not have to justify cock fighting and other acts
of animal cruelty as
morally
permissible. These are different acts to animal
research in an important respect. It is not
the intention of the researchers to
harm the animals, but rather to produce high
quality research for
the
betterment
of
human
lives.
Whilst
it
is
true
that
in
some
cases
harm
to
the
animals
is
a
reasonably
foreseeable
consequence
of
the
research,
this
is
minimised
wherever
possible,
with
pain killers,
anaesthesia, and attempts to use other research
means. There are many exceptions in