Paste your essay in here…Eunice Lopez
Professor Epting
Phil 242- 1010
May 2018
Utilitarian: Animal Testing
The definition of Utilitarianism is an ethical theory and that the actions are morally right if it benefits the highest number of people with the most considerable amount of happiness. The person themselves determine what is right for calculating the amount of pleasure or suffering they think their works may cause on other people. It is also the only philosophy theory where the where the means justify the ends, and deals with the consequences of actions and therefore is a consequentialist theory. In this paper, I argue that the utilitarian moral conclusions regarding animal testing and if we would morally abolish animal suffering or to inflict it. One might say that the billions of animals being tested on, as well as their suffering and death, might not exceed the happiness, health, and enjoyment of the life of the millions of people who are alive today because of it.
Human beings are capable of protecting ourselves from all but the most dangerous circumstances, shaping and changing our environment that are fit our own wants and needs. For us to live a significant life, we have to make sacrifices like having to test on animals. Animals testing has contributed to many lifesaving cures and treatments for humans beings as well as providing us humans with the opportunity to learn about themselves. An example on how we’ve benefited from animal testing and research it by being able to create vaccines and antibiotics to prevent and treat infections, and anesthetics used in all forms of surgery. Medicines can now overcome serious conditions such as diabetes, asthma, and high blood pressure (Understanding Animal research).Peter Albert David Singer, an Australian moral philosopher, claims, “that if the consequences of a medical experiment are sufficiently good to justify the use of animals, then we should be prepared to perform the experiment on human beings with equivalent mental capacities” (Agar). With the testing of animals as well as science and, medical breakthroughs, it had produced the most happiness and had reduced suffering of humans everywhere. In his 1975 book, Animal Liberation, Singer debates about animal experimentation, and he goes on to explains as to why he believes that it is a good idea. “He catalogued the suffering inflicted on animals in the name of science and farming and argued that such animals deserved equal consideration, based on their capacity to suffer. To make a distinction between humans and non‐humans is “speciesism,” an argument no better than sexism or racism” (Foëx).
A utilitarian can also argue against animal testing saying that the amount of suffering an animal has to go through during the experimentation is not worth any amount of happiness for a cure or pleasure of humans. Tom Regan, an American philosopher who specialized in animal rights theory, argues that animals have rights themselves. And an animal's life has inherent value to that animal and confers moral status to that individual, humans have no reason to exploit other creatures irrespective of possible benefits to humans. An example where animal testing has caused not helped and has created suffering would be in the 1950’s where thalidomide. “Thalidomide first entered the German market in 1957 as an over-the-counter remedy, based on the maker’s safety claims. They advertised their product as “completely safe” for everyone, including mother and child, “even during pregnancy . . . And could not find a dose high enough to kill a rat” (Fintel). The sleeping pill, which was tested on animals before its commercial release caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities. Craig Mackenzie, a writer for Daily Mail UK, wrote about the Grunenthal Group realizing their apology 50 years later after the incident had happened. “Thalidomide babies often suffered missing or deformed limbs and extreme shortening of arms and legs, but the drug also caused malformations of the eyes and ears, genitals, heart, kidneys and the digestive system” (Mackenzie). Those against animal testing and experimentation can argue that the example of 1950’s is a reason why the amount suffering an animal goes through is not worth it, animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects. It also doesn’t reliably predict results it may have human beings. Aysha Akhtar, a neurologist, public health specialist, and author wrote further evidence of this by writing:
“Over one hundred stroke drugs have been found effective in animals in the lab, yet all have failed in humans. Over 85 HIV vaccines that worked in non-human primates failed miserably when tried in humans Animal experiments fail because no matter how many physiologic similarities there may be between other animals and humans, there are just too many differences. To make matters worse, we are not even aware of what most of those differences are. The way medicine is practiced today, it seems that the differences — even the most subtle ones — outweigh the similarities.”
In this paper, I have argued both sides of a utilitarian point of view and the experimentation on non-human animals. The theory emphasizes the ends justify the means and is based on the act of the most significant good for the most considerable number of people. Everyone should take that into consideration and think about the consequences for not only for themselves but for the animals as well.
Word Cited
Akhtar, Aysha. “Want to Improve Medical Research? Cut Out the Animals!” The Huffington
Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 7 Dec. 2017
Agar, Nicholas. “How to Insure against Utilitarian Overconfidence.” Monash Bioethics Review,
vol. 32, no. 3, 2014, pp. 162–171.
Fintel, Bara, Athena T. Samaras, and Edson Carias. “Helix Magazine.” The Thalidomide
Tragedy: Lessons for Drug Safety and Regulation | Helix Magazine, 28 July 2009
Foëx, Bernard A. “The Ethics of Animal Experimentation.” Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ,
BMJ Group, 24 Nov. 2007
“For Human Health | Understanding Animal Research.” Understanding Animal Research, 21
Feb. 2018
Leenders, T. (2006). Animal rights and wrongs: A critique of singer and regan's views of duties
to animals (Order No. MR16543). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global. (304952561).
Mackenzie, Craig. “German Firm Which Invented Birth Defect Drug Thalidomide Apologizes
for the First Time in 50 Years – but British Charity Demands Compensation.” Daily Mail
Online, Associated Newspapers, 1 Sept. 2012
Smart, R. N. (1958) “Negative utilitarianism”, Mind, 67, 542-543.