The Ethics of Animal Testing Essay Example for Free

The Ethics of Animal Testing EssayYears ago, while laws were non in place to prevent examination on tools, some researchers experimented on brutes. The results of these experiments are still with us today. Insulin for example, was discovered when an Ontario doctor severed the connection between the pancreas and the digestive system of a hound dog.1 Today in that location are still many animals in labs world canvassed to find treatment for anything from cancer to pain. If the results select a possibility to save so many lives, as in the case of insulin for those with diabetes, then test on animals should be the right thing to do right? Many people agree on saying that the low of an animal is not worth the saving of lives, especially if the tests are unsuccessful. They compare the animals lives to those of humans, claiming that it is not right to test on human orphans. therefore it should not be right to test on stray animals. In these statements lie the fundamental ethi cal dilemma about animal testing, it is right or wrong testing on animal for humans benefits? In this paper I pull up stakes assay animal rights from a utilitarians point of view. I will define the major points that utilitarianism holds and animal testing. I will explore the cases for and against animal testing using utilitarian reasoning (including Bentham and Mills disagreement, act and rule utilitarianism, and cost-benefit analysis). at long last I will close with my own feelings on animal experimentation and my conclusions drawn from the analysis.First, utilitarian guess is consequentionalist and stress the ends of a particular action. It is also Hedonistic in nature, meaning that is focuses on happiness and merriment, those being the only intrinsic good. A utilitarian considers five factors in the pleasure of the consequences of an act, whichever act brings about the about pleasure or happiness is the best thing to do in the end. John Mill urged that the spirit of the p leasure is an important consideration as well. Consider also the difference between act utilitarianism (considering each(prenominal) act individually) and rule utilitarianism (applying the consequences of an act universally).In addition, a contemporary version of utilitarianism, cost-benefit analysis, states that whatever act produces the nigh money (or saves the most money), is that decision that should be made. Second, animal testing consists of any medical examination test performed on an animal. Including product testing, like perfume and cleaners, and research like the effects of isolation on a loving animal. To taste animal testing from a utilitarian point of view we should consider whether or not an animal can feel pain, or suffer. We typically do not consider animals to be without feeling, that is wherefore we have laws protecting animals against cruelty. Many people disagree about whether or not locking an animal in a cage is cruelty or not.The case for animal testing Using utilitarianism generally, if testing on animals produces the most happiness overall and reduces woeful then it is the right thing to do. When medical uncovering are made at the expense of an animal, is the happiness of those who can be cured greater than the suffering of the animal who underwent the experiments? Mill would see to argue that the happiness of someone who has been cured would be longer long-lived and better then the self gratifying happiness of an animal. Act utilitarianism would look at each congressman of animal testing and determine if the consequences are better if the animal is tested on than if it were not. Finally, cost-benefit analysis would seem to agree with animal testing because innovations in medicine means money made and saved on health care. This would produce the most money and would be the better thing to do if the question is to test or not.The case against animal testingJeremy Bentham was purely concerned with the amount of pleasure produce d. One could argue that the amount of suffering an animal would be subjected to in testing is not worth the amount of suffering that would be reduced if a cure were found. Those who are against animal testing would not experience pleasure and one can assume that those testing the animals would not gain happiness from watching the animal suffer. Therefore one can argue that not testing on the animals would indeed reduce suffering and maximise pleasure. Rule utilitarianism applies best here, because then one can consider the consequences of allone testing on animals for any reason. With that practically freedom to testing negative consequences would be more likely to occur and therefore banning animal testing would be the best action.ConclusionI own several mice, a guinea pig, a rabbit, two hamsters, fish, a turtle, three cats, a dog and a chameleon. I, personally, felt that testing on animals has no moral worth no matter what the consequences. I feel an emotional bond between myse lf and every one of my pets. I would never want them to go through what some animals do in the medical labs. Upon further consideration I am still without a clear decision as to whether I would want to save my dog or help my family with diabetes. It would be a difficult choice. That is why I think that utilitarianism is the best way to approach animal testing. By using act utilitarianism we can examine each instance of testing separately and examine the consequences for happiness production. As in the example of the dog in the introduction. The dog did experience suffering but overall its suffering reduced the suffering of unmeasured people by providing medication for diabetics. My conclusion is that applying act utilitarianism to animal testing can help to use up the better way each time.