argument top image

Is animal testing ethical? Show more Show less
Back to question

The ethics of animal experimentation is a topic of hot debate in academia. Animal rights groups consider animal testing unethical due to the harm inflicted on animals. The other side of the debate justifies the harm because animal testing will bring greater benefits to the world.

Animal testing is ethical Show more Show less

Unlike humans, animals lack moral judgment and possession of rights. Therefore, animal testing cannot violate animal rights. Humans need to conduct animal experimentation to further science, which makes the use of animals in research ethically justifiable.
(1 of 3) Next position >

Animals have no rights and are not the equal of humans

The holders of rights must have the capacity to recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Since animals lack the capacity for free moral judgment, they cannot possess rights. Human exceptionalism requires that human benefit comes above all other causes.

The Argument

Humans are not obliged to respect animal rights because no such rights exist. Therefore, animal testing does not violate any rights. It is ethical to use animals for research purposes. Some philosophers explain the inexistence of animal rights through the concept of the moral community. A moral community is a group of individuals who have certain traits in common. This means that they take on certain responsibilities toward each other and assume specific rights. The human moral community is characterized by a capacity to manipulate abstract concepts by personal autonomy. It does not include animals because animals do not have the cognitive capabilities of humans and do not hold full autonomy (animals do not rationally choose to pursue specific life goals). Hence, humans do not have any obligations towards animals. In this sense, animals have no rights and humans have a higher moral status than animals. Therefore, it becomes permissible to use animals in experiments. The question of whether the experiments harm animals or not is less significant than the potential human benefits from the research.[1] Another related argument is that if animals had such rights, they would have to be held accountable for killing other animals in the wilds. It is a matter of ethics and not of the laws of human societies that animals ought to be treated kindly by people. Eagerness to treat animals kindly does not justify imposing one's hopes and dreams for them on human beings.[2] Overall, humans possess a higher moral status and fundamental rights that animals lack. This situation gives humans the ethical justification to use animals in experiments.

Counter arguments

One problem with this argument is that many humans themselves do not fulfill the criteria for belonging to the human moral community. Both infants and mentally handicapped people lack complex cognitive capacities and full autonomy. Yet, their situations do not exclude them from holding fundamental rights.[1] Animals and humans both have rights because they are both subjects of life. This fact implies that they have similar levels of biological complexity and are aware that they do exist. If a being is the subject-of-a-life, then they have inherent value. All beings with inherent value are equally valuable and entitled to the same rights.[3]

Proponents

Premises

Rejecting the premises

References

  1. https://hopes.stanford.edu/animal-research/#the-case-for-animal-experimentation
  2. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/25/ban-fur-then-why-not-leather/animals-do-not-have-basic-rights
  3. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi4quWwpq3sAhXrZxUIHTfxB8EQFjABegQIAhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fethics%2Fanimals%2Frights%2Frights_1.shtml&usg=AOvVaw0BS5If7D-lkHAghjRXBAcw
This page was last edited on Wednesday, 14 Oct 2020 at 02:10 UTC

Explore related arguments