Whether or not we should use animals in medical research Essay

Whether or not we should use animals in medical seek - Essay ExampleEvery side of the personal credit line has posed questions concerning mans place with respect to these animals and the natural world. Most people arguing against the use of animals for medical research have based their arguments on the relationship between humans and nature philosophies as put forward by Peter Singer that humans do not exist totally above nature, with the focus basically on animals. Singer refers to most attitudes that humans possess towards animals as speciesism that is a concept, which has existed throughout history (Owen 33). Before him, Aristotle was of the quite a little that nature consists of a hierarchy where animals with less ability to reason existed for those who had less ability to reason. Therefore, plants are in existence for the sake of animals, with animals existing for the sake of humans. He utilize this concept to further his belief in slavery with humans with less reasoning a bility existing to serve those with higher ability (Owen 34). While this view has been rejected by society, it is applied towards animals and other non-humans. Speciesism has been practiced by Christians and Jews based on the superiority they extract from the book of Genesis and Gods give-and-take (Owen 36). ... The lobby for animal liberation does not contend that every animal has equal worth, however. It contends that where the animal and man possess similar interests, these interests need to be equated to from each one other, for instance, the avoidance of physical pain (Owen 37). There should be no automatic discount because one is human and the other evidently is not. Singers rejection of speciesism is understandably illustrated by his clarification he does not mean to imply that all living beings have equal worth via his consideration of how man makes choices within his consume species. If man had to make a choice between saving a normal human beings life and that of an int ellectually deficient human, he would most probably plump for the normal one. However, were the choice between the prevention of despicable in a normal human and in the intellectually deprived, devising the assumption that both had painful injuries and that there were only pain-killers for one, then the choice becomes murkier. The choice probably would be on the basis of the one who had more suffering (Owen 38). Because most experiments concerning animals are painful to the animal, the movement for animal rights commits itself to the complete abolition of animal use in medical research. Those that support the utilization of animals for medical research argue that while animals do suffer in a virtuously significant way, this is not sufficient ground, by itself, to afford them equal status morally with humans (Owen 50). Therefore, if the animals do not have the same moral status in comparison to humans, humans are not morally obligated to strangle themselves from using them for med ical research.