Vivisection is the practice of testing new products or procedures on animals for the potential benefit of humans. There are numerous ethical approaches that one can take when discussing a values-based issue such as the practice of animal experimentation. Two of the most interesting ethical views that can be taken when investigating this issue are those of Christianity and utilitarianism.
The Christian view on the rights of animals and vivisection has actually varied greatly throughout history. For the following reasons, traditional Christians believed that natural law dictated that animals were purely created for the benefit of other animals and humans:
• God had created animals for the use of human beings and human beings were therefore entitled
…show more content…
o humans have souls and animals don't o humans have reason and animals don't
• Christian thought was heavily humano-centric and only considered animals in relation to human beings, and not on their own terms (BBC, 2009)
However, as time has moved forward, and as new leaders of the Church have been elected, the common Christian view has changed to a relatively pro-animal perspective, putting forward the following ideas in support of animal rights:
• The Bible shows that God made his covenant with animals as well as human beings
• Human and non-human animals have the same origin in God
• In God's ideal world human beings live in harmony with animals
• God has the right to have everything he created treated respectfully - wronging animals is wronging God
• God is not indifferent to anything in his creation
• The example of a loving creator God should lead human beings to act lovingly towards animals
• Animals are weak compared to us - Christ tells us to be kind to them
• To love those who cannot love you in the same way is a unique way of acting with generous love
• It is a great good to take responsibility for the welfare of others, including animals (BBC,
…show more content…
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that says an action is morally right if it benefits the greatest number of beings with the greatest good (Utilitarianism, n.d.). Following this objective approach, utilitarians, for the most part, have no problem with animal experimentation. Vivisection has saved far more human lives than it has ended those of animals. In fact, as of 2005, scientists have found treatments for anthrax, rabies, rickets, rheumatoid arthritis, whooping cough and leprosy and also the prevention of polio, diphtheria, measles, tetanus and rubella. In terms of comparing the benefits and disadvantages, the example of the oral polio virus can be used. In the 1980’s, over 350 000 people were paralysed per year by the virus. However, Dr Albert Sabin – who developed the vaccine – says that only "approximately 9,000 monkeys and 150 chimpanzees ... were necessary to solve many problems before an oral polio-virus vaccine could become a reality" (Development, n.d.). Thus, the lives saved far outweighed the lives lost, and this largely symbolises how most utilitarians feel about
Another of the many popular beliefs was that every living thing put on Earth by god was for human use. He gave humans control over his creatures. All of them had certain roles, as food, medicine, etc. For example, cows were put on Earth to supply people with meat and milk, and wheat was there to supply bread. Everything on Earth was useful to humans.
It is estimated that more than 1 million people die annually in the United States from heart disease and cancer combined (Leading Causes of Death). What if all of those human lives could have been saved by sacrificing relatively few animals? Conservationists and animal rights activists always have the best of intentions for animals and the environment. They believe that animals should never have to suffer because of the choices human beings make. This view can be unrealistic in many situations. Jane Goodall’s A Question of Ethics was a very emotional and Rogerian style essay, but I found it lacked the supporting facts and credibility that can be found in Heloisa Sabin’s aggressive “classic” styled essay Animal research Saves Human Lives.
So by the natural order of things, we can treat animals in any way we like (106). The second assumption is, Animals have no moral standing of their own; we’re free to treat them in any way we desire or please (107). Before moving along, it’s an essential to comprehend what Bentham means by “God’s image” and “no moral standing.” Bentham defines God’s image as, the humans that are relatable to him because God is depicted as a human and not a nonhuman (106). No moral standing can be explained as this, it’s the concept that nonhuman animals don’t have the same morals as we humans have therefore, in this case, we can treat them in harsh, mistreating ways in order to get want we want from them. For example, in this passage, Bentham argues mistreatment of nonhuman animals for our luxury goods isn’t that of unequal moral consideration for nonhuman animals, but it’s the reason that has to do with human welfare, not the welfare of nonhuman
---."The Theos-Rights of Animals." Animals and Christianity. Ed. A.Linzey et al. New York: Crossroad, 1990.
Regan, T. and P. Singer, eds. Animal Rights and Human Obligations 2/e (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989)
The first chapters do not have any restrictions about what animals morally can do or not do—it is nearly impossible for animals to make moral decisions because they only rely on instinct. However, God does set restrictions on what humans can and cannot do. In Genesis 2: 16-17, God says, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” The quote may only be an allegory, but it does show why humans must be moral creatures and decide to follow or ignore God. To follow God is a relationship purely based on love. We are not persons without the option to choose. This sets us apart from all other animals and it is in our nature to have trustful, loving relationships with one another and God. However, not only our relationship with God is a moral choice. Humans are moral and consequences occur based on their choices. Chapter two also brings about other aspects of human nature in addition to morality. God gave Adam the task of naming every creature God created. As a result, “the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field” (Gn 2:20). This quote can provide an answer to the human need to organize, categorize and define things. After all, man was given the job of naming everything God had
Vivisections, medical research that harms the research subject without providing any benefits to them, is supported by philosophy professor R.G Frey on the basis that the using and killing of animals is morally permissible because humans' quality of life exceeds animals' quality of life. Frey does not disregard the fact that vivisections harm animals, he sees no difference in the pain felt by humans and animals; nonetheless, Frey does not believe that all members of the moral community have lives of equal value. He believes that sacrificing the lives of those with less value is better than sacrificing the lives of those with higher values. Therefore, Frey defends the act of vivisections on the basis that humans' lives are of greater moral value
Animals are used today for many sources of protection, food, clothing, transportation, sports, entertainment, and labor, but millions of these animals die each year from abuse. “Most of the reasons that people give for denying animals rights are: animals do not have souls, god gave humans dominion over the animals, humans are intellectually superior to animals, humans are intellectually superior to animals, animals do not reason, think, or feel pain like humans do, animals are a natural resource to used as humans see fit, and animals kill each other” (Evans). It all started in the nineteenth century, when people began abusing animals by beating them, feeding them poorly, providing them with no shelter or poor shelter, left to die if they were sick or old, or by cruel sports. Most of the organized efforts to improve human treatment of animals all started in England. Around the 1800s, there was signs of rising concern for animal welfare in the United States.
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”(Arthur Schopenhauer)
The debate of whether animal rights are more important than human rights is one that people have argued mercilessly. Some people think all animals are equal. To understand this, humans must be considered animals. Humans are far more civilized than any animal, they have the power, along with understanding to control many types of sickness and disease. This understanding that humans have, keeps them at the top of the food chain.
vivisection Animal Research and Testing, Is it Ethical? “It is a simple fact that many, if not most, of today’s modern medical miracles would not exist if experimental animals had not been available to medical scientists. It is equally a fact that, should we as a society decide the use of animal subjects is ethically unacceptable and therefore must be stopped, medical progress will slow to a snail’s pace. Such retardation will in itself have a huge ethical ‘price tag’ in terms of continued human and animal suffering from problems such as diabetes, cancer, degenerative cardiovascular diseases, and so forth.” Dr. Simmonds, a veterinarian who specializes in the care of laboratory animals, is one of many who believe that animal testing is an ethical practice.
Animals deserve fair and ethical treatment, however not necessarily equally. Non-human animals and humans are not one in the same, there is no way we will ever be defined and put in the same category. Humans have reference levels, the ability to reason and think logically. We have evolved to the point where we can study, contain, and determine the outcome of basically any animal on Earth, now it’s up to us to ensure they are treated fairly.
...ed by law because of murdering others, then it is wrong to kill animals as well.
God was so interest in the welfare of the animals that He commanded Noah to build an Ark big enough to hold two of each kind of animal. In Genesis 1:26 God entrusted us to care for these beautiful creations. Taking care of your pet entails going to the vet, a balanced and nutritious diet, and plenty of exercise. So if you heart goes out the animals that are bred in cramped quarters and exploited for profit. If you cry at pictures and stories of abused animals, then you are an animal lover at heart. You know the importance of taking on the responsibility of caring for a pet. Pass the wisdom on to your children, friends, and neighbors. Everyone should treat animals with care. Animal abuse is a crime; people need to be educated in the responsibility of taking care of their pets.
Throughout the history of the world, there have been subjects of heated debates; there are a few facts that are undisputed. One of the undisputed facts is that animals existed and inhabited the planet before humans did and humans have been dependent on animals for thousands of years. Animals have played a very vital part in our history and one wonders whys should they be treated with much cruelty. While animals have been a great resource, a steady supply of food and clothing and even security, our treatment towards them has become nothing short of appalling. Since humans are dependent on animals for their well being, their comfort and at times their religion, there should be a moral obligation to treat animals.