Analyses of the Articles about Animal Ethics - Research Paper Example

Animal Ethics The case for the use of animals in biomedical research: Carl Cohen in his article, the case for the use of animals in biomedical research, is of the opinion that animals do not have rights. Cohen defends speciesism, and the use of experiments using animals. His assertion is that animals lack the capacity of autonomous moral judgment and reasoning morally, hence has no rights. Cohen argues that speciesism is in no way similar to racism or even sexism. This paper agree with Cohen’s view for the continuation of using animals for biomedical research since there is an obligation to expand medical research, and human beings cannot be used for research. Animals do not have rights since they do not have moral reasoning and moral judgment. Use of animal as research subjects in medical research has been condemned widely criticized and condemned on two grounds: that it wrongly violates the animal rights and that it wrongly imposes much avoidable suffering on sentient creatures. According to Cohen (575), these arguments are not valid the first one relies on an understanding of rights which is mistaken, and the second is based on calculations of sequences which is mistaken. A right is a claim that can be exercised by one party against another (Cohen 576). The target of right claim can be a human being, community or even the entire humankind but not to animals. For, any genuine right to be fully comprehended the person who holds the claim against the other party must be known and to what it is a right. Rights arise, according to Cohen (576), and they can be “intelligently defended, only among beings….” Only human beings can make claims and rights beings claims, animals do not have rights since they can not make any moral claim against any person or group. The attributes of human beings from which, moral capability arises, have been discussed by philosophers in all times; ancient and modern, the inner consciousness of a free will. Animals do not have the ability to reason using a free will, and this denies the animals rights. Human beings defend other human beings lives and animals’ by treating them, and this can only be done through the use of animals in research. According to Cohen (579), “every disease eliminated, every vaccine developed…virtually every modern medical therapy is due… to experimentation using animals.” For human and animal welfare to be enhanced, research has to be done using the animals. The article the case for the use of animals in biomedical research, by Carl Cohen looks on the importance of animals in biomedical research to both animals and humans, as well. This paper fully supports Cohen in his argument about animals not having rights, his definition on rights. Animals should be used for research in order to enhance the welfare of animals and human beings. Cohen does not overlook any evidence that would seriously criticize his thesis, and he handles the criticism by providing essential information to refute the criticism against animal use, in biomedical research. He works on the two criticisms available to defend biomedical research. He claims that all sentient animals have equal rights. Animals do not have rights but, they should be taken care of by human beings, who have moral reasoning. Research should be done on animals in order to provide better medication for both animals and human beings. This view can be challenged as being speciesim, based on the pain animals feel. All animals are equal: Peter Singer, in his article, “all animals are equal”, rejects “speciesism”, prejudice against another species. He compares it with racism and argues that human beings have an obligation to fight speciesim, since animals also suffer and have an interest in not suffering. Singer aims his ideas at animal experimentation. This paper does not agree with Singer because he is against research experimentation using animals, and yet research has to be done in order to improve both humans and animals wellbeing. Singer (567) calls for animal liberation and argues that if the equality argument was right when applied to women, it should also be applied to animals. The same way women rights should be equated to men, so should the nonhuman rights be equated to human rights? There are obviously significant disparities between humans and other animals, and this gives human beings more rights than animals according to Taylor. Singer uses the parody of women rights to call for animal rights. He argues that women, the blacks and other oppressed groups demand for equality and yet deny equal consideration to nonhumans (Singer 568). If at all human beings are created differently and they call for equality, then non human animals should also be treated as such. Both human beings and animals like rabbits, pigs and rats are mammals and should be accorded equal treatment. Singer uses utilitarian logic, to argue that animals suffer less compared to the pleasure and nutrition derived by humans when the animals are slaughtered. Singer opposes the use of animals in biomedical research and laboratory saying that their suffering outweighs their usefulness to humans as test subjects and, therefore, advocates for the abolition of such practices, which have, high moral consequences to the animals (Singer 567). Singer use of “vindication of the rights of the women” as a parody to fight for animal rights is not rights since he is comparing women to non human animals and this gives root to criticism in his work (Singer 567). Human beings regardless of their minority status cannot be equaled to animals because human beings have moral conscience, which is absent, in animals. Human beings have moral rationality, which is absent, in animals. The author presents abundant evidence about the suffering of the animals in biomedical research, but overlooks the points that critics would use in criticizing the thesis. Human beings cannot be equated with animals since it is the human beings who take care of animals through research in order to heal sick animals. Human beings are always superior to other animals by nature as they have autonomous moral reasoning, unlike the animals. Biomedical research on animals should continue to be done regardless of the pain the animals go through if, new vaccines are to be got, all diseases terminated and, if all medical therapies are to be improved (579). The biomedical research caters for both animals and human beings. This view might be challenged through speciesim where men human beings can also be required to be used in the biomedical research instead of animals. Immoral and moral uses of animals: Christina Hoff in her article “Immoral and Moral uses of animals” takes an intermediate position where she states that she does not feel that animals have rights. To her animals are capable of suffering from feeling pain although they have different morals from those of humans. She supports the use of animals in experiments if they will be substantial help to humans and other non human animals. This paper partly supports her because animals should be used in medical research (Hoff, 582). Hoff presents her argument to the conclusion through reasons which as follows, the reason of rationality, natural way and the human nature. This presents the reason to show how different human beings are to non humans. She bases her argument in relation to different theories from different scholars (Hoff, 583). Rationality means that human beings have the capability to communicate with others. She argues that this differentiates nonhuman animals from human beings. Through the natural way, she argues that dominance of human beings over other animals is natural and can not be forfeited to nonhumans. The human nature reason states that no matter how a human being is impoverished they are indispensable than any nonhuman animal. She calls for every human to be respected because he or she is a human being (Hoff, 583). The author uses different theories as evidence to her argument they include the following. One of the theories is the Kant principle of personality which calls for human beings to be respected no matter their nature. She also uses Darwinism ethical theory which sought explanations to facts of nature through morals. Hoff also uses the Cartesian theory which dismisses animals from moral considerations (Hoff, 584). The article presents evidence on why nonhuman animals should be used in experiments to be beneficial to human beings. Hoff (585) in the article contradicts her views by discouraging the use of non human animals in experiments by saying that they also suffer from pain and other frustrations. This leads to a disagreement with the authors reasoning and arguments. This is because according to the bible, human beings have power over all the other animals and; therefore, they should use them to benefit them and other human beings. The author’s argument that nonhuman animals have morals does not hold because animals do not think the way human beings do. The author’s evidence is not enough to present her arguments satisfactorily. This because she uses theories which evolved many years ago; therefore, they can be outdated and can not support her conclusions. The author’s evidence overlooks the suffering of human nature as she opposes the use animals in experiments, therefore, basing on this her argument can be criticized. Though the use of non human animals in experiments is right, it can lead to ethical issues, which will lead, to the argument being opposed. The question of ethic rises where the experiments do not yield any benefits thus leading to destruction of animals. There challenges to using animals in experiments such as there is no clear line drawn as to what extents the experiments can be. This will lead to misusing of nonhuman animals. Work cited Cohen, Carl. “The Case for Use of Animals in Biomedical Research.” The New England Journal of Medicine 315 (1986): 865- 870. Print. Hoff, Christina. “Immoral and Moral Uses of Animals.” The New England Journal of Medicine 302.2 (1980): 115- 118. Print. Singer, Peter.”All Animals are Equal.” Animal Liberation 2 (1990): 1-86. Print. Read More