Is it wrong to experiment on animals for human purposes?

  • Words qordxs wir

    Y e s I t I s a b a d t h I n g b e c a u s e it is a ni mal cruelty s o d o t h e w o r d a f a v o r a n d s t o p h u r t I n g a n I ma l s

  • Words qordxs wir

    Y e s I t I s a b a d t h I n g b e c a u s e it is a ni mal cruelty s o d o t h e w o r d a f a v o r a n d s t o p h u r t I n g a n I ma l s

  • Words qordxs wir

    Y e s I t I s a b a d t h I n g b e c a u s e it is a ni mal cruelty s o d o t h e w o r d a f a v o r a n d s t o p h u r t I n g a n I ma l s

  • It is bad

    Dud hhh hhh hhh hh hh h h hh h h h h h h h hh h h h h h h h hh h h h h h hh h h h h h h hh h h h h h h h h hh h h h

  • Our justification for testing is misguided.

    We often attempt to justify our treatment of animals my constructing a system that measures the value of life and the depth of suffering based on human characteristics, the primary trait taken into account most commonly being intelligence. The logic follows that the life and well-being of those at the top of the scale is more valuable than those at the bottom. This system is governed by vague principles at best (I have yet to encounter any specific ratios such as, let us say, ten mice to the monkey) and the simple truth is that it is based upon dogmatic and unscientific principles. Intelligence is not a simple thing to define and there is little evidence for a correlation between it in any of it's accepted forms and the capacity for suffering. Not only that but the proposition that life has not only some form of objective worth but that this worth can be hierarchically ranked is ridiculous.

    Why then is it that the question of whether one would choose to save the life of a human or rat is, for the vast majority, so easy to answer? The truth is that the system I was describing is an attempt to logically justify an emotional response. We share a common bond with members of our own species, can relate to them in a way which we cannot with other animals and as a result find the possibility of their distress or injury more disturbing. This is the subjective basis from which our value system derives. I will not argue that there is something inherently wrong with feeling this greater level of compassion for fellow humans but it does not mean that those of other species have a lesser capacity for suffering. Applied any other area of law, particularly in areas that involve causing harm to others, basing what behaviour is deemed acceptable upon the level of empathy the lawmakers have with those to whom the law applies would be considered unjust, corrupt and fundamentally against the principles of a liberal, democratic society. As for the question of how to make significant scientific advances without animal testing I would point out that modern technology is presenting us with an ever increasing number of alternatives many of which have the potential to be far more effective than current methods and if animal testing where to become illegal the rate of development of these technologies would most likely increase dramatically providing us with more advanced and efficient drugs development programmes.

  • Practically speaking, there's no one attempt

    It is technically wrong, since experiments are systematic endeavors to prove or support a scientific concept, idea or theory. And this would not take only one animal. This wold eventually be harmful because first, it would arise a social clamor, especially from advocates, and would instill negative perception to the laboratory conducting the experiments. Thus, if the scientists practice it for human sake, then it will be hampered well enough since people today tend to have more prioritizing centered away from them. On the other hand, human body systems are very different from animal systems. Practically speaking, if one needs to use it on humans, then it should be carried out in humans, too. Safer technologies are being developed nowadays to ensure the safety of the experimental setups. Humans are no longer in grave danger. Thirdly, animals tend to acquire more diseases that could lead to mass bank of carrion than tested medicines in the lab. At least if they are going to be tried on humans, more accurate measurements could be conducted, and lesser attempts will be furnished, since the tester would be the user himself.

  • Yes, it is morally wrong.

    It does no use to argue for the positive benefits of animal experimentation because that is irrelevant, it is the same to me as arguing for the positive benefits of experimentation on prisoners. The worth of an animal's life or well being is the same to it as their own lives are to humans. It is only the humans who think an animal's life is less worthy of consideration. It is our arrogant position of superiority among creatures that allows us to think we can use another's life for our own interests.

  • Two words /

    A n I m a l c r u a l t y w I l l n o t b e t o l e r a t e d t o t h e s e p o o r a n d I n o c e n t c r e a t u r e s

  • It is not wrong.

    It is not wrong to experiment on animals for human purposes.. While there are some things that animals should not be tested, like testing cosmetic items and other stupid things. Testing animals for medical purposes to help humans find and develop cures is fine as the cost is worth it for the benefit.

  • So many animals!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Lets face it. There are heaps of animals in our world, including rabbits (so many rabbits). There are heaps of them and a few of them that we use for experiments won't matter (as long as everyone in the world don't have one each). Plus, us humans have more problems than a little rabbit!!!

    Posted by: miki
  • Animals do not have rights

    They have no rights and are unable to reason. Experimenting on animals for human purposes is not inherently wrong. God gave us animals for our benefit. Being gifts, you should still be respectful when dealing with them. You don't smash the new ceramic vase your wife bought you at the wall for fun.

  • What Else Are We Supposed to Do?

    Should we do our experiments on humans instead? How do we get volunteers?
    Humanity has to look out for its own interests first and foremost. We should consider the welfare of animals, but to put their consideration on the same level as a person is ridiculous because it's not like it's going to be reciprocated. If we treat animals truly the same as humans then sharks should be put in jail for shark attacks.

  • It Is Not Wrong

    I do not thing that it is wrong to experiment on animals for human purposes. There are positives for animals and humans that come from it. Many drugs for both humans and animals have been found by experimentation. I see no reason why we should stop and firmly believe that it is OK to continue.

  • No, especially for certain kinds of drugs

    There is no denying that animals are greatly harmed by experimentation. They are purposefully injected with painful medications and often given cancer or other diseases on purpose. However, the alternative is to test these drugs on human beings. Imagine asking a group of 500 pregnant women to test a new drug for something necessary (an asthma medication, for example). Scientists would have to resort to blind studies like these if they could not test on animals.

  • No, it is not wrong to experiment on animals for human purposes.

    Experimentation on animals is important and necessary. Many products can be tested on animals to ensure that they are safe for human use or consumption. Also, drugs can be tested on animals to see if they have a desired effect or bad side effects. It is much better to do this testing on animals then on humans. The safety of humans takes priority over the safety of animals.

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