Should animal testing be legal?

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Subject classification: this is a medicine resource.

We made several important medical discoveries due to animal testing, but is it morally correct? Do the means justify the ends when we cause suffering and death to non-human animals? We usually value human life above all others (speciesism) but are there any limits on what costs are worth the benefits to us?

By animal testing we mean experimentation with non-human animals for the purpose of scientific research.

Animal testing should be legal[edit | edit source]

Pro[edit | edit source]

  • Argument for Animal testing helps researchers find cures and treatments for human and non-human diseases. As humans we should value other humans above animals and reduce harm to humans.
    • Objection To value humans over other animals constitutes speciesism, and that is morally incorrect.

Con[edit | edit source]

  • Argument against Animals are not mere objects for humans to treat as we please, they do not consent to participate in experiments in which they may suffer or die, and we have no right to force them to do so.
    • Objection Why cannot we force animals to participate? Is there anything that animals do consent to? Is it possible to know their consent? Using this line of logic, humans would also have no right to force them into servitude as pets.
      • Objection There is a big difference between 'forcing' an animal to be a pet and experimenting on them. First of all, being a pet is in most cases the best possible life for a being, while experimenting is quite the opposite.
  • Argument against Using animals as a model for diseases or drug responses in humans can be unreliable, leading to experiments that cause animal suffering without helpful results to justify them.

See also[edit | edit source]

Notes and references[edit | edit source]