Animal Testing Is Cruel Regardless Of Its Benefits

Name: Professor’s Name: Course: Date: Animal Testing is Cruel and Unethical Regardless of the Benefits of it The debate over whether animal testing is cruel and unethical has been ongoing for several decades. It is not a secret that medical researchers make use of non-human animals as subjects in their experiments. However, the biggest question has always been whether the act is ethical or not. Looking at the respondents to this question, there is a clear divide between those who believe it is good practice and those who do not. On one side, there are those who adamantly believe that animal experimentation should end simply because it is wrong to treat animals as mere tools. Apparently, those who advocate for this point of view believe that animals, like humans, feel pain and are also full of life. Therefore, they should be treated as conscious beings. On the other hand, there are those who believe that animals are mere tools and that using them in research does not in any way contradict any laws or ethical principles in existence. This group seem to base their argument on the fact that animal experimentation has led to the creation and expansion of present knowledge of man’s body. Aside from the above, this group is also adamant in their notion that animals lack the cognitive capabilities which help to differentiate mankind from them. Neither side is willing to admit or to succumb to the arguments of the other nor has consensus on the matter been reached. Aside from the above, it is essential to acknowledge that there are also those who seem to believe that they have a place in the middle of the argument, i.e. they expect animal experimentation to continue but within certain lines. Unlike the lot above, this article will take a stand and while acknowledging the weight of the opposing viewpoints opine that it is indeed ethical and morally right to conduct tests on animals. One of the reasons why it is morally and ethically right to experiment on animals is that they do not belong to man’s moral community. “The origins and development of the theory of human rights is inextricably tied to the development of moral universalism” CITATION Ale \l 1033 (Alex). The above statement simply means that the notion or idea of rights does not apply to anyone and everything but only those within our so-called moral community. While within such a group, everyone is obligated to respond and treat everyone else with the respect that recognizes their moral rights and status. However, one may ask, on what basis or what is used to determine whether someone or something belongs to a particular group? Well, if the group under question is mankind, the answer would include factors such as autonomy, self-awareness, and the ability to wish and pursue goals in life. In trying to provide a deeper analysis of the above, Fox makes use of two terms: the inner circle and the outer circle. For creatures to be considered as members of the inner circle, Fox opines that they “must possess the sorts of characteristics” which include “critical self-awareness; the ability to manipulate complex concepts and to use sophisticated language (especially for the purpose of communicating wishes, desires, needs, decisions, choices and so on); and the capacity to refle...