Utilitarian Arguments Against Animal Rights

Animal rights is currently a very hot topic in social media, documentaries, and politics in the U.S.. It is easy for the layman to claim they are against animal cruelty and for animal rights without fully understanding the goal of animal rights activist. With that being said they are also unaware of how the horrendous practices within biomedical research has brought so much benefit to humanity through the use of animals in research. In this paper, I will explore two utilitarian arguments which have opposing conclusions on the matter of animals in biomedical research. Singer’s utilitarian argument concludes it is morally impermissible to use animals in biomedical research. However, Cohen’s particular application of utilitarianism not only

Under the utilitarian perspective, the morally permissible choice is one that maximizes the most amount of pleasure for the most amount of individuals. Arguments against use of animals in research place an equal value on animal and human pain. Although Cohen believes there is a moral difference between animal and human suffering he considers the utilitarian argument that there is no moral difference between animal and human suffering to make his point. He argues that if biomedical researchers were to abandon effective research practices by considering animal pain as equal to humans, the impact on human life would be catastrophic. He poses that although animals suffer in research labs, elimination of horrible diseases, increased longevity in humans, and an improvement in the quality of life that humans lead justifies the use of animals in biomedical research. He recognizes that animals should not be made to suffer needlessly but claims that suffering for biomedical research for the benefit of humanity gives them a higher purpose than mere suffering. He concludes it is necessary we continue animal research but increase it to maximize the benefits humans reap and to avoid as much avoidable suffering to