Ethics In Animal Testing

Every year, billions of animals are killed for human consumption. Millions of animals are being used in the laboratory for product testing that would benefit humans. Thousands of animals are killed for their fur, skin, or trunk. People only think of animals as species that are lower and will never be equal to them. Ideas such as animals exist for humans even existed. The idea that animal suffering should be prevented only started more than 180 years ago. It was greeted with nothing but derision. What people love to use as a reason is that animals can’t even think like humans do. They do not know what is right from wrong like humans do. Although animals are not able to reason, they are able to suffer and to feel pain. However, it is not about

Both do not possess the ability to think rationally. But to make any of them suffer means doing wrong against him or her even if no other humans with sense of justice would be upset if they suffered. If torturing people like them is wrong, so should torturing animals be. Therefore, whatever ethical theory that is rationally accepted would at least recognize that people have some direct duties to animals just as they have to each other. The direct duty view is separated into two views. The first is the cruelty-kindness view. This view is simply being kind to animals and not be cruel to them. But just like the case of abortion’s morality, ethical treatment of animals is not something the cruelty-kindness view would be able to satisfy. Then there is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism considers two principles. The first one is the principle of equality: everyone’s interests count, whether black or white, animal or human, male or female. The second one is the principle of utility: the act that would bring about the best balance between satisfaction and frustration for everyone affected by the outcome should be the act to do. Although a utilitarian takes everyone’s interest into account, it has no room for equality of worth or inherent value of individuals. What a utilitarian does is to add up all the satisfactions gained in one column and all the frustrations in another column. Then he chooses the option which has the best balance of the totalled satisfactions and the totalled frustrations. In Regan’s example, he illustrates: “My Aunt Bea is old, inactive, a cranky, sour person, though not physically ill. She prefers to go on living. She is also rather rich. I could make a fortune if I could get my hands on her money, money she intends to give me in any event, after she dies, but which she refuses to give me now. In order to avoid a huge tax bite, I plan to donate a handsome sum of my profits to a local children's hospital. Many, many