Is it morally justified to perform tests on animals if the results may significantly reduce human suffering?

  • How does animals have rights?

    I would value any form of human life more valuable compared to any form of non-human life. How can animals have any rights if they cannot claim their own rights? I assume that is why the animals have you to claim it for them, but did they somehow let you work as their deputy? I don't think so.

  • It's better than testing on new products on humans.

    Humans have families and things to care for but most animals don't, humans have entire lives to live and animals like rats and bunnies are probably going to end up dead anyway, so why not benefit from those deaths and maybe save human lives. But we shouldn't exaggerate it, if it can be avoided, we should avoid it

  • I believe that animal testing helps.

    In 1796, Edward Jenner, an English doctor, carried out an experiment on a 8 year old farmer's boy, against Smallpox. He vaccinated the boy with cowpox, and this cured the boy. If Edward Jenner had not experimented on an 8 year old boy, there to this day, would not be a vaccination against Smallpox, and we could all still be suffering and dying from it, and now, scientists cant even experiment on animals without a protest, who ridiculous.

  • I support animal testing.

    Animal testing is justified because it saves human lives. Are monkeys going to bring us better medicines! No! Therefore human lives should be saved because we are more important to society.Testing on animals is better than testing on humans and it will save human lives. Animal testing is necessary to cure diseases.

  • I believe that testing on animals to avoid human suffering is justified, because it more humane than testing on people.

    If a new product comes out, would you want it to be tested on you or your pet rat? That is the situation asked of us with questions such as this. My belief is that we have coddled these animals out of their natural state, and that these animals are taking resources that could easily be used by humanity. That being said, I don't mind animal testing. It's certainly a lot more humane than testing on people.

    Posted by: PuzzledCharles70
  • I support animal testing only when human lives are at stake, because there are many diseases where cures could not be found without this kind of testing.

    At any given point in time, new drugs are being developed that could treat or cure diseases, such as cancer, diabetes and AIDS. New drugs are often tested on animals, before being given to humans. This is to ensure a baseline level of safety. This way, we can find out important facts, such as how much of the drug can be given before it is toxic, and if it has any fatal side effects. The alternative is testing the drugs' safety by giving the drugs straight to sick people. If this were the case, then new drugs would never be developed.

    Posted by: babyuniqh
  • Yes, it is morally justified to perform tests on animals, because in order to bring a drug to market, it must be safe for humans, and the FDA won't let you blindly test humans.

    It is morally justifiable to perform tests on animals, because any drugs or vaccines that we develop will benefit society as a whole. We have a lot of diseases that we not have a cure for including Aids, cancer, along with a lot of diseases that affect us when we get older. We haven't even found a cure for the common cold yet!

    Posted by: labusy
  • Animal testing is justified in some situations as long as the harm is minimized and the benefits are maximized

    Animal testing with methods that minimize suffering and produce great benefit to humans is justifiable, especially if the harm to animals is minimal and the animals are not particularly intelligent or sensitive.

    Posted by: EmmeAnguris
  • Animal testing can be morally justified, as long as that is the only option.

    Animal testing is too often used in some industries, like in the testing of cosmetics, but if can be useful in the medical field. If the only way to find a cure for diseases that kill humans is to do the testing on animals, then I agree with it. But, if there are other methods of testing that do not involve harming animals, even if they are more expensive, I think it is more morally responsible to leave animals out of the process. I think in many cases there are human who would try out the experimental medicine and we know enough about most treatments by now to be able to leave animal testing out of the process.

    Posted by: lachercheuse
  • I believe that animal testing is morally justified if diseases can be cured and lives saved.

    Testing animals is morally acceptable because of the human suffering it can help to alleviate. By using test animals, scientists have been able to find results that give more knowledge to medical professionals to use in the treatment of serious diseases in humans. Some of the results from animal testing have helped to reduce death rates from certain conditions in humans. Certainly, all test animals should be treated humanely, but I believe it is for the benefit of mankind to continue to do this type of testing.

    Posted by: R0d0Ferdy
  • Think about the animals

    Animals have family"s to. So how would you feel if someone just came into your house and took you out for testing and took you away from your own family . What would you do?I mean seriously do you as a person want to live in a world where animals are dying because of our needs

  • RSPCA Statement From Webstie

    The RSPCA has repeatedly stated on their website that 20,000 ingredients used in cosmetic tests on animals can be used on humans without any side-effects which are unhealthy. These ingredients are things used on animals for cosmetic experimentation. Why do it on animals when you, yourself can be experimented on with potentially some small benefits from it.

  • This is just murder!

    It is preposterous to kill weak and defenseless animals for what we claim to be a method of beatifying ourselves physically or for "research". This a just an excuse for killing those that we consider weak an unworthy of living a good life like we humans do just because they can't speak and are not considered of our level.

  • They Feel Just Like Us

    Against popular belief, animals have the same comprehension that we do. Maybe not to our extent but they do. Animals can feel and experience pain just like we can, so why make them suffer when only we benefit from the experimenting. They get nothing from it. We are only hurting them for the advancement of mankind but it is our duty as the top of the pyramid of life to take care of all God's creature, and animal testing goes blatantly against it.

  • Animals and humans are DIFFERENT

    Most of this tests makes no sense because humans and animals are too different. There are many other ways to test, probably they are more expensive (as we do not pay animals for suffering for us) but ethical treatment and respect for (every) life is much more important than money!

  • What is the point

    Why do we need to keep coming up with different versions of the same chemical when we already have plenty? That’s just needless suffering we impose on living creatures for the greediness of corporations. How about working on a cure for insensitivity to other species? As a species, we've lost touch with what it means to be alive. We try and hold nature with artificial mechanisms to keep ourselves living longer, looking younger, fulfilling the never ending long for materialistic pleasure, but at what costs? The suffering and death that we force other living creatures to go through just for our own selfish gain. Turning the other cheek to this reality and finding ways to joke about it because we don't posses the maturity to face this actuality. It angers and saddens human beings with a soul to see people display such foolish ignorance with such feeling, ignoring their sub consciousness whispering ethics and morals to them.

  • Why are we testing on animals for human problems?

    When it comes to medical testing or even cosmetic testing on animals the fact of the matter is the results are not relevant to humans. Tests they do species to species on animals have varying results that most of the time are completely different results when tested on humans. Everyone is arguing over if it's morally right or wrong to test on the animals but put that aside for a second and realize regardless of that its a waste of time and money. So were either killing animals for no real results or were killing them to save ourselves from getting sued. Either way, its wrong. Our diseases aren't their problem anyway.

  • There's no point

    There's no point in animal testing because its not accurate anyway. Why is it that us humans need inaccurate information, not to mention that we already killed enough animals as it is. The animals need a break from humans finding new ways to kill them off. How would you feel if that was you? You or your children being taken away from you to be thrown into a lab of back to back testing. Humans and animals aren't the same therefore why would we test animals if they don't even function the same way we do. No they may not be able to speak and tell us what they think but its clear that they have feelings. Look at the facts

  • It's unreasonably archaic.

    Why would people do animal testing when there are more modern methods of testing? Animal testing isn't even accurate!!!!! There are better, more Eco friendly, ways of testing. WE DO NOT NEED ANIMALS TO FIND MEDICINES!!!! In fact, only about 5% of successful animal tests are medically beneficial to us.

  • Benefits of animal experiments cannot morally justify the costs

    We have no right to experiment on animals, to cause them pain and suffering and kill them, to find cures for our diseases. We must look for alternatives. If benefit were the only criterion, experiments on prisoners, the senile, the comatose and even infants would be justified, because we would be benefiting "society as a whole". But we don't experiment on people, no matter how undeserving, incapacitated or unformed, for the very good reason that it is wrong. Similarly, we should not experiment on animals, because they are” lower”, or less intelligent, or less rational than us, even though in both cases we might be missing out on discoveries and knowledge which would advance human health.

    People, like researchers, who talk about "the benefits outweighing the costs” are invariably the ones who never have to bear any of the costs. In contrast, lab animals who are innocent, not a threat, and who do not consent, bear all the costs and don't receive any of the benefits. Wonder what their view of the “harm-benefit” balance is?
    Animal experimentation is a pernicious industry, and researchers just cannot escape the fact that their practices are callous, cruel and ethically unjustifiable.

    People, like researchers, who talk about "the benefits outweighing the costs " are invariably the ones who never bear any of the costs. Lab animals are innocent, not a threat, bear all the costs and don't receive any of the benefit. Animal experimentation is a pernicious industry, and researchers just cannot escape the fact that their practices are callous, cruel and ethically unjustifiable.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.