An argument against animals being used as experimental subjects

The first is through the application of cigarette-smoke condensates to skin. Cigarette-smoke condensates are collected by passing smoke through cold traps and recovering the retained material. The cigarettes are usually machine-smoked and the material is washed from the traps using a volatile substance such as acetone, which is then removed.

An argument against animals being used as experimental subjects

This argument states that animals are not members of the 'moral community'. A moral community is a group of beings who live in relationship with each other and use and understand moral concepts and rules the members of this community can respect each other as moral persons the members of this community respect each other's autonomy human beings do display these characteristics and are therefore members of the 'moral community' animals do not display these characteristics and are therefore not members of the 'moral community' most people would agree with this: All non-human animals lack the capacity for free moral judgment.

Therefore, non-human animals do not have moral rights. Top Fundamental rights Animal and human rights boil down to one fundamental right: Philosophers have a traditional way of expressing this: Animals with rights must be treated as ends in themselves; they should not be treated by others as means to achieve their ends.

From this fundamental right come other rights. Particular species only get relevant and useful rights - so animals don't get all the rights that human beings get.

When rights conflict Sometimes a particular situation results in a conflict of rights. Two methods can be used to determine the best course of action when there is no alternative to violating the rights of some individual or group: Where similar harms are involved, override the fewest individuals' rights.

An argument against animals being used as experimental subjects

Where dissimilar harms are involved, avoid harming the worse-off individual. Harm is defined as the reduction of the capacity to have and fulfil desires.

An argument against animals being used as experimental subjects

This definition of harm benefits people over animals because human beings have far more desires that they want to satisfy than do non-human animals. This resolves many of the traditional problems of humans versus animals in favour of humanity, because the human being under consideration would suffer far more harm than the non-human animal.

Top The problem of 'marginal people' The phrase 'marginal people' or 'marginal human beings' is unpleasant. We use it here only because if you read the literature of animal rights you will encounter it often, and it's important to know what it means. We do not intend to denigrate the status or worth of any human being by using it here The problem with the line of thought in the section above that it takes rights away from many human beings as well as from non-human animals.

This is because some human beings babies, senile people, people with some severe mental defects and people in a coma don't have the capacity for free moral judgement either, and by this argument they wouldn't have any rights. Some philosophers are prepared to argue that in fact such 'marginal human beings' don't have rights, but most people find that conclusion repellent.

The argument can be rescued by rewriting it like this: If an individual is a member of a species that lacks the capacity for free moral judgment, then he or she does not have moral rights. All non-human animal species lack the capacity for free moral judgment.Here you will find an example of an IELTS animal testing essay.

In this essay, you are asked to discuss the arguments for and against animal testing, and then give your own conclusions on the issue. This means you must look at both sides of the issue and you must also be sure you give your opinion too.

Dec 08,  · If a being is the subject-of-a-life then it can be said to have 'inherent value'. (human or animal) in a valid experimental way. Some of the arguments against animal rights centre on. Threats against Bush by celebrities which were never investigated. John Kerry The picture above shows John Kerry as he was being interviewed by Bill Maher in October of on the HBO show Real schwenkreis.com can be seen in this video exclusively on the ongoodmove blog, starting at about one minute into the clip Kerry says what can only .

The argument also ignores the reasoning ability of many animals, including pigs who demonstrate measurably sophisticated approaches to solving problems and primates who not only use tools but also teach their offspring how to use them. Argumentative Essay Animal Testing.

Animal Testing Should Not Be Banned.

William Lane Craig’s Debates (Reviews)

“Arguments against animal testing” by Natasha. Read More. Words: - Pages: 6 live animals as experimental subjects and use invasive techniques test on schwenkreis.comction experiments involve the uses of animals for product testing or in education and conduct.

II. The Role Of Pornography In Undermining Some Males' Internal Inhibitions Against Acting Out The Desire To Rape “The movie was just like a big picture stand with words on it saying ‘go out and do it, everybody's doin' it, even the movies.‘” (Rapist interviewed by Beneke, , p.

).

The Ethics of Animal Experimentation - HOPES Huntington's Disease Information