Shouldwebananimaltesting是否应该禁止动物实验.doc

《Shouldwebananimaltesting是否应该禁止动物实验.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Shouldwebananimaltesting是否应该禁止动物实验.doc（9页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN ANIMAL TESTINGAnimals have a right not to be harmed.POINT:The differences between us and other vertebrates are a matter of degree rather than kind.Not only do they closely resemble us anatomically and physiologically, but so too do they behave in ways which seem to convey meanin

2、g. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed the behaviour of a pet dog on hearing the word“walk”. Our reasons for believing that our fellow humans are capable of experiencing feelings like oursel

3、ves can surely only be that they resemble us both in appearance and behaviour (we cannot read their minds). Thus any animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us. If we accept as true for sake of argument, that all humans hav

4、e a right not to be harmed, simply by virtue of existing as a being of moral worth, then we must ask what makes animals so different. If animals can feel what we feel, and suffer as we suffer, then to discriminate merely on the arbitrary difference of belonging to a different species, isanalogous to

5、 discriminating on the basis of any other morally arbitrary characteristic, such as race or sex. If sexual and racial moral discrimination is wrong, then so too is specieism.COUNTERPOINT:Animals do not have such a right not to be harmed; even if they are similar to humans in terms of their feelings

6、(that opposition does not concede) this right is impossible to argue for. The right of a human not to be harmed is a part of a quid pro quo that we will also not do harm to others. Animals are unable to engage in such a contract either to us or to other animals. Animals are not about to stop hunting

7、 other animals because the animal that is hunted feels pain when it is caught and it even if animal experimentation was to be ended it is unlikely that humanity would stop killing animals either for food, to prevent overpopulation or by accident all of which would have to be the case if animals feel

8、ing of pleasure and pain and resulting rights had to be taken into account.Animal research necessitates significant harm to the animals involved.POINT:Animal research, by its very nature necessitates harm to the animals. Even if they are not made to suffer as part of the experiment, the vast majorit

9、y of animals used, must be killed at the conclusion of the experiment. With 115 million animals being used in the status quo this is no small issue. Even if we were to vastly reduce animal experimentation, releasing domesticated animals into the wild, would be a death sentence, and it hardly seems r

10、ealistic to think that many behaviourally abnormal animals, often mice or rats, might be readily moveable into the pet trade.It is prima fasciae obvious, that it is not in the interest of the animals involved to be killed, or harmed to such an extent that such killing might seem merciful. Even if th

11、e opposition counterargument, that animals lack the capacity to truly suffer, is believed, research should none the less be banned in order to prevent the death of millions of animals.COUNTERPOINT:Firstly, due to our larger and more sophisticated brains, one would expect the average human to have a

12、great many more interests than any animal, for those interests to be more complex and interconnected, and for there to be a greater capacity for reflection and comprehension of the satisfaction gleaned from the realisation of such interests. Thus, we can ascribe greater value to the life of a human

13、than an animal, and thus conclude there to be less harm in painlessly killing an animal than a human. Secondly, to the extent that research on animals is of benefit to humans, it is thus permissible to conduct experiments requiring euthanasia of the animal subjects.Research can be done effectively w

14、ithout experimenting on living creature.POINT:As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on

15、 animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so

16、there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when

17、exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a g

18、ood excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals.COUNTERPOINT:Most developed countries, including the United States and the

19、 member-states of the European Union, have regulations and laws which require the research methods that do not involve animal models should be used wherever they would produce equally accurate results. In other words, scientists are barred from using animals in research where non-animal methods woul

20、d be just as effective.Further, research animals are extremely expensive to breed, house and care for. Developed countries have very strict laws governing the welfare of animals used in research; obtaining the training and expert advice required to comply with these laws is costly. As a result, acad

21、emic institutions and medical or pharmaceutical businesses function under constant pressure to find viable alternatives to using animals in research. Researchers have a strong motive to use alternatives to animal models wherever possible.If we ban animal research even if research advances continue w

22、e will never know how much further and faster that research could have gone with the aid of experiments on animals. Animal research conducted today produces higher quality results than alternative research methodologies, and is thus it is likely necessary for it to remain in order for us to enjoy th

23、e rate of scientific advancement we have become used to in recent years.1Precisely because we never know where the next big breakthrough is going to come, we do not want to be narrowing research options. Instead, all options - computer models, tissue cultures, microdosing and animal experiments - sh

24、ould be explored, making it more likely that there will be a breakthrough.Some groups of people have less capacity for suffering than most animalsPOINT :It is possible to conceive of human persons almost totally lacking in a capacity for suffering, or indeed a capacity to develop and possess interes

25、ts. Take for example a person in a persistent vegetative state, or a person born with the most severe of cognitive impairments.We can take three possible stances toward such persons within this debate. Firstly we could experiment on animals, but not such persons. This would be a morally inconsistent

26、 and specieist stance to adopt, and as such unsatisfactory. We could be morally consistent, and experiment on both animals and such persons. Common morality suggests that it would be abhorrent to conduct potentially painful medical research on the severely disabled, and so this stance seems equally

27、unsatisfactory. Finally we could maintain moral consistency and avoid experimenting on the disabled, by adopting the stance of experimenting on neither group, thus prohibiting experimentation upon animals.COUNTERPOINT:We do not need to justify the moral value of severely cognitively disabled persons

28、, although if we wanted to, we could invoke notions of kinship, and family as providing a justification for acting in an apparently specieist manner.Rather, it is sufficient to highlight the point, that experimenting on humans of any cognitive function, carries with it certain negative externalities

29、. Such persons are likely to have relatives who would be harmed by the knowledge that their loved ones are being used in medical experiments for example. Even in the case of such a person who lacks any relatives, broader society and disabled rights groups could be harmed by a policy that allows trea

30、ting some disabled persons differently to the rest of our moral community.Such externalities would make experimenting on animals, rather than such persons, both preferable and morally consistent.Would send a positive social message, increasing animal welfare rights more generally in societyPOINT:Mos

31、t countries have laws restricting the ways in which animals can be treated. These would ordinarily prohibit treating animals in the manner that animal research laboratories claim is necessary for their research. Thus legal exceptions such as the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act in the UK exi

32、st to protect these organisations, from what would otherwise be a criminal offense. This creates a clear moral tension, as one group within society is able to inflect what to any other group would be illegal suffering and cruelty toward animals. If states are serious about persuading people against

33、cock fighting, dancing bears, and the simple maltreatment of pets and farm animals, then such goals would be enhanced by a more consistent legal position about the treatment of animals by everyone in society.COUNTERPOINT:We do not have to justify cock fighting and other acts of animal cruelty as mor

34、ally permissible. These are different acts to animal research in an important respect. It is not the intention of the researchers to harm the animals, but rather to produce high quality research for the betterment of human lives. Whilst it is true that in some cases harm to the animals is a reasonab

35、ly foreseeable consequence of the research, this is minimised wherever possible, with pain killers, anaesthesia, and attempts to use other research means. There are many exceptions in law which maintain moral consistency due to the intention behind the act. For example, killing someone for money wou

36、ld be murder and illegal, whilst an exception might be made if you were killing in war, or self-defence, as the intention behind the act is held to be both different and morally just.Animals rights are of less moral worth than human rightsPOINT:Humans are complex beings with large well developed bra

37、ins, that form sizeable social groups, have significant ability to communicate with one another, possess interconnected desires, preferences and interests about the world, have an awareness of their own existence and mortality, and as such are beings worthy of moral consideration. Animals too expres

38、s some of these characteristics to some degree and thus animals too are worthy of moral consideration. However, animal lives and human lives are of unequal value. This is due to the fact that no animal possesses all of these characteristics to the same degree as the average human, or even comes part

39、icularly close. Thus any rights ascribed to animals should be truncated relative to the rights we ascribe to humans.1Therefore animals should not rightly possess the same rights to not be experimented upon as humans might. To the extent to which causing some harm to animals brings great benefit to h

40、umans, we are morally justified in creating some moral harm, to achieve a far greater moral good.COUNTERPOINT:To argue that the ends justify the means does not justify research upon animals. Firstly we do not know the extent to which animals are capable of holding interests or experiencing suffering

41、, as they are unable to communicate with us. Our shared similarities give us cause to believe they must have at least a truncated experience of the world to us, but we cannot know the level of that truncation. Thus in order to avoid committing a significant moral harm upon a being we do not fully un

42、derstand, a precautionary principle of non-experimentation would be well advised. Secondly, even if we would be achieving a net gain on the utilitarian calculator, that is insufficient justification on its own. By that same logic, experimenting on one person to save the lives of many could be justif

43、ied, even if it caused them suffering, and even if they did not consent. Common morality suggests that this is an objectionable position to hold, as the moral principle would allow us to treat any being as a means to an end rather than existing as a being of independent value.In short such logic wou

44、ld allow us to experiment not only on animals but also on non-consenting people, and we posit that to be an unreasonable position to hold in this debate.People would die and suffer needlessly under such a policyPOINT:23 new drugs are introduced each year in the United Kingdom alone . While almost al

45、l of these drugs will have been brought to the market after extensive animal testing, the number of animals used to check their safety only seems to be a high cost when the benefits that each drug brings to its users are inadequately considered.New drugs that are approved for medical use have the po

46、tential to relieve human pain and suffering not only for the first group of patients given access to them, but also for future generations of sick and suffering individuals too. Consider all the lives, all over the world, that have benefitted from penicillin since its discovery in 1928. If drugs cos

47、t more to research and develop, then that reduces potential profit margins, and some drugs that would have otherwise been discovered and released will fall below the new threshold of likely profits necessary to fund the research. Adopting this proposition will lead to more people suffering and dying

48、 in the future than would have otherwise been the case.COUNTERPOINT:Firstly the vast majority of drugs released today (around 75%) are so called “me too” drugs that add little, if any genuine innovation to the existing body of pharmaceuticals in production. Rather, they represent only a slight molec

49、ular tweak on an existing drug line. Such drugs rarely save lives or even relieve much suffering upon their release, as they are only very slightly better, for only some patients, than the drugs available prior to its release.1None the less, the development of only technically novel compounds is used as a justification for research on animals, even when the benefit from such research is marginal at best. Secondly, even if there was a small increase in future human suffering, relative to a future where such a policy was no