Shouldwebananimaltesting是否应该禁止动物实验.docx
- 文档编号:14284377
- 上传时间:2023-06-22
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:11
- 大小:121.89KB
Shouldwebananimaltesting是否应该禁止动物实验.docx
《Shouldwebananimaltesting是否应该禁止动物实验.docx》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.docx(11页珍藏版)》请在冰点文库上搜索。
Shouldwebananimaltesting是否应该禁止动物实验
Should-we-ban-animal-testing-是否应该禁止动物实验
THISHOUSEWOULDBANANIMALTESTING
Animalshavearightnottobeharmed.
POINT:
Thedifferencesbetweenusandothervertebratesareamatterofdegreeratherthankind. Notonlydotheycloselyresembleusanatomicallyandphysiologically,butsotoodotheybehaveinwayswhichseemtoconveymeaning.Theyrecoilfrompain,appeartoexpressfearofatormentor,andappeartotakepleasureinactivities;apointcleartoanyonewhohasobservedthebehaviourofapetdogonhearingtheword“walk”.Ourreasonsforbelievingthatourfellowhumansarecapableofexperiencingfeelingslikeourselvescansurelyonlybethattheyresembleusbothinappearanceandbehaviour(wecannotreadtheirminds).Thusanyanimalsharingouranatomical,physiological,andbehaviouralcharacteristicsissurelylikelytohavefeelingslikeus.Ifweacceptastrueforsakeofargument,thatallhumanshavearightnottobeharmed,
animalsinvolvedtobekilled,orharmedtosuchanextentthatsuchkillingmightseemmerciful.Eveniftheoppositioncounterargument,thatanimalslackthecapacitytotrulysuffer,isbelieved,researchshouldnonethelessbebannedinordertopreventthedeathofmillionsofanimals.
COUNTERPOINT:
Firstly,duetoourlargerandmoresophisticatedbrains,onewouldexpecttheaveragehumantohaveagreatmanymoreintereststhananyanimal,forthoseintereststobemorecomplexandinterconnected,andfortheretobeagreatercapacityforreflectionandcomprehensionofthesatisfactiongleanedfromtherealisationofsuchinterests.Thus,wecanascribegreatervaluetothelifeofahumanthanananimal,andthusconcludetheretobelessharminpainlesslykillingananimalthanahuman.Secondly,totheextentthatresearchonanimalsisofbenefittohumans,itisthuspermissibletoconductexperimentsrequiringeuthanasiaoftheanimalsubjects.
Researchcanbedoneeffectivelywithoutexperimentingonlivingcreature.
POINT:
Asexperimentingonanimalsisimmoralweshouldstopusinganimalsforexperiments.Butapartfromitbeingmorallywrongpracticallywewillneverknowhowmuchwewillbeabletoadvancewithoutanimalexperimentationifweneverstopexperimentingonanimals.Animalresearchhasbeenthehistoricalgoldstandard,andinthecaseofsomechemicalscreeningtests,wasformanyyears,bymanywesternstates,requiredbylawbeforeacompoundcouldbereleasedonsale.Scienceandtechnologyhasmovedfasterthanresearchprotocolshowever,andsothereisnolongeraneedforanimalstobeexperimentedon.Wenowknowthechemicalpropertiesofmostsubstances,andpowerfulcomputersallowustopredicttheoutcomeofchemicalinteractions.Experimentingonlivetissueculturealsoallowsustogaininsightastohowlivingcellsreactwhenexposedtodifferentsubstances,withnoanimalsrequired.Evenhumanskinleftoverfromoperationsprovidesaneffectivemediumforexperimentation,andbeinghuman,providesamorereliableguidetothelikelyimpactonahumansubject.Thepreviousnecessityoftheuseofanimalsisnolongeragoodexcuseforcontinueduseofanimalsforresearch.Wewouldstillretainallthebenefitsthatpreviousanimalresearchhasbroughtusbutshouldnotengageinanymore.Thusmodernresearchhasnoexcuseforusinganimals.
COUNTERPOINT:
Mostdevelopedcountries,includingtheUnitedStatesandthemember-statesoftheEuropeanUnion,haveregulationsandlawswhichrequiretheresearchmethodsthatdonotinvolveanimalmodelsshouldbeusedwherevertheywouldproduceequallyaccurateresults.Inotherwords,scientistsarebarredfromusinganimalsinresearchwherenon-animalmethodswouldbejustaseffective.
Further,researchanimalsareextremelyexpensivetobreed,houseandcarefor.Developedcountrieshaveverystrictlawsgoverningthewelfareofanimalsusedinresearch;obtainingthetrainingandexpertadvicerequiredtocomplywiththeselawsiscostly.Asaresult,academicinstitutionsandmedicalorpharmaceuticalbusinessesfunctionunderconstantpressuretofindviablealternativestousinganimalsinresearch.Researchershaveastrongmotivetousealternativestoanimalmodelswhereverpossible.
Ifwebananimalresearchevenifresearchadvancescontinuewewillneverknowhowmuchfurtherandfasterthatresearchcouldhavegonewiththeaidofexperimentsonanimals.Animalresearchconductedtodayproduceshigherqualityresultsthanalternativeresearchmethodologies,andisthusitislikelynecessaryforittoremaininorderforustoenjoytherateofscientificadvancementwehavebecomeusedtoinrecentyears.[1]Preciselybecauseweneverknowwherethenextbigbreakthroughisgoingtocome,wedonotwanttobenarrowingresearchoptions.Instead,alloptions-computermodels,tissuecultures,microdosingandanimalexperiments-shouldbeexplored,makingitmorelikelythattherewillbeabreakthrough.
Somegroupsofpeoplehavelesscapacityforsufferingthanmostanimals
POINT:
Itispossibletoconceiveofhumanpersonsalmosttotallylackinginacapacityforsuffering,orindeedacapacitytodevelopandpossessinterests.Takeforexampleapersoninapersistentvegetativestate,orapersonbornwiththemostsevereofcognitiveimpairments.
Wecantakethreepossiblestancestowardsuchpersonswithinthisdebate.Firstlywecouldexperimentonanimals,butnotsuchpersons.Thiswouldbeamorallyinconsistentandspecieiststancetoadopt,andassuchunsatisfactory.Wecouldbemorallyconsistent,andexperimentonbothanimalsandsuchpersons.Commonmoralitysuggeststhatitwouldbeabhorrenttoconductpotentiallypainfulmedicalresearchontheseverelydisabled,andsothisstanceseemsequallyunsatisfactory.Finallywecouldmaintainmoralconsistencyandavoidexperimentingonthedisabled,byadoptingthestanceofexperimentingonneithergroup,thusprohibitingexperimentationuponanimals.
COUNTERPOINT:
Wedonotneedtojustifythemoralvalueofseverelycognitivelydisabledpersons,althoughifwewantedto,wecouldinvokenotionsofkinship,andfamilyasprovidingajustificationforactinginanapparentlyspecieistmanner.Rather,itissufficienttohighlightthepoint,thatexperimentingonhumansofanycognitivefunction,carrieswithitcertainnegativeexternalities.Suchpersonsarelikelytohaverelativeswhowouldbeharmedbytheknowledgethattheirlovedonesarebeingusedinmedicalexperimentsforexample.Eveninthecaseofsuchapersonwholacksanyrelatives,broadersocietyanddisabledrightsgroupscouldbeharmedbyapolicythatallowstreatingsomedisabledpersonsdifferentlytotherestofourmoralcommunity.
Suchexternalitieswouldmakeexperimentingonanimals,ratherthansuchpersons,bothpreferableandmorallyconsistent.
Wouldsendapositivesocialmessage,increasinganimalwelfarerightsmoregenerallyinsociety
POINT:
Mostcountrieshavelawsrestrictingthewaysinwhichanimalscanbetreated.Thesewouldordinarilyprohibittreatinganimalsinthemannerthatanimalresearchlaboratoriesclaimisnecessaryfortheirresearch.Thuslegalexceptionssuchasthe1986Animals(ScientificProcedures)ActintheUKexisttoprotecttheseorganisations,fromwhatwouldotherwisebeacriminaloffense.Thiscreatesaclearmoraltension,asonegroupwithinsocietyisabletoinflectwhattoanyothergroupwouldbeillegalsufferingandcrueltytowardanimals.Ifstatesareseriousaboutpersuadingpeopleagainstcockfighting,dancingbears,andthesimplemaltreatmentofpetsandfarmanimals,thensuchgoalswouldbeenhancedbyamoreconsistentlegalpositionaboutthetreatmentofanimalsbyeveryoneinsociety.
COUNTERPOINT:
Wedonothavetojustifycockfightingandotheractsofanimalcrueltyasmorallypermissible.Thesearedifferentactstoanimalresearchinanimportantrespect.Itisnottheintentionoftheresearcherstoharmtheanimals,butrathertoproducehighqualityresearchforthebettermentofhumanlives.Whilstitistruethatinsomecasesharmtotheanimalsisareasonablyforeseeableconsequenceoftheresearch,thisisminimisedwhereverpossible,withpainkillers,anaesthesia,andattemptstouseotherresearchmeans.Therearemanyexceptionsinlawwhichmaintainmoralconsistencyduetotheintentionbehindtheact.Forexample,killingsomeoneformoneywouldbemurderandillegal,whilstanexceptionmightbemadeifyouwerekillinginwar,orself-defence,astheintentionbehindtheactisheldtobebothdifferentandmorallyjust.
Animals'rightsareoflessmoralworththanhumanrights
POINT:
Humansarecomplexbeingswithlargewelldevelopedbrains,thatformsizeablesocialgroups,havesignificantabilitytocommunicatewithoneanother,possessinterconnecteddesires,preferencesandinterestsabouttheworld,haveanawarenessoftheirownexistenceandmortality,andassucharebeingsworthyofmoralconsideration.Animalstooexpresssomeofthesecharacteristicstosomedegreeandthusanimalstooareworthyofmoralconsideration.However,animallivesandhumanlivesareofunequalvalue.Thisisduetothefactthatnoanimalpossessesallofthesecharacteristicstothesamedegreeastheaveragehuman,orevencomesparticularlyclose.Thusanyrightsascribedtoanimalsshouldbetruncatedrelativetotherightsweascribetohumans.[1] Thereforeanimalsshouldnotrightlypossessthesamerightstonotbeexperimenteduponashumansmight.Totheextenttowhichcausingsomeharmtoanimalsbringsgreatbenefittohumans,wearemorallyjustifiedincreatingsomemoralharm,toachieveafargreatermoralgood.
COUNTERPOINT:
Toarguethattheendsjus
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- Shouldwebananimaltesting 是否 应该 禁止 动物 实验
![提示](https://static.bingdoc.com/images/bang_tan.gif)