ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ETHICAL

TREATMENT

Introduction

In hospitals, universities, and the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries, non-human animals are
employed in medical and other scientific research. Animals are used in scientific research to assist
create vaccinations, surgical techniques, antibiotics, and other drugs. Consumer products like
shampoos, perfumes and cosmetics are tested on animals. Additionally, biology, medicine, and related
areas use animals as teaching tools for their pupils. These will all be referred to as "animal research."

The primary species employed are rats and mice, however other creatures such as fish, amphibians,
birds, and reptiles are also utilized. Many animals experience anguish, fear, and suffering during
animal experimentation, and some animals even pass away. Naturally, a lot of creatures in the wild also
experience suffering and death, which is why the adage: “nature red in tooth and claw.”
Animal research is morally controversial. Many scientists just assume that it is morally permissible,
but animal rights advocates claim that it is not.

Most of the time, humans use animals for their purposes without considering the morality of the
behavior. Animals have been and still are utilized by humans for food, sport, companionship,
transportation, farming, and leisure etc.

Similarly, the majority of the time, researchers have used animals in their work without feeling
compelled to provide a moral defense. If a rationale is deemed necessary, proponents primarily argue
that the benefits of this type of study to humans exceed any potential costs or suffering incurred by the
animals.

Moreover, supporters of animal research typically maintains that using animals in study produces
scientific knowledge that cannot be reached by any other means or that using animals in research is
more efficient than using other approaches.

Below is a summary of some important claims assumed or given in support of animal research:

 It is morally acceptable for humans to use animals, that is, to raise and keep them for our own
purposes, to do things with and to them, and to create things from them. For instance, we might
consume them, make clothing out of them, employ them in agriculture, utilize them as guide and
guard animals, keep them as pets, conduct research on them, etc.

 Animals do not possess the right to exist, the right to live their own lives, or the right to be free
from human exploitation.

 The advantages of such research for humans outweigh any pain that animals experience during
research.

 The use of computers and other non-animal research methods, such as computer modeling, cannot
completely replace the use of animals in research since the knowledge gained from these
approaches would be inferior.

We can add a few changes or qualifications that those who favor animal research typically now agree
with because of current discussions among ethicists around animal rights and how we should treat
animals:
 Animals may have no right to life, but they deserve some sort of moral consideration that
disallows some kinds of treatment of animals. For example, it would be wrong to torture animals
for fun. If possible, they should be treated humanely and not made to suffer unnecessarily.
 Controls should be in place to protect research animals from unnecessary harm (pain and
suffering).

This modern qualified version of support for animal research grants animals some sort of moral
consideration or moral status; some animal research advocates may go so far as to allow that animals
have some limited moral rights. Most people grant that it would be wrong to make or allow an animal
to suffer or torture an animal just to provide us with amusement or entertainment. This could be
expressed in terms of animal rights, where animals have the right to be free from torture, or in terms of
human moral obligations, where we have an ethical obligation to refrain from torturing animals. In the
past few decades, there have also been worries that zoo animals ought to have better, more natural
surroundings to give them a higher quality of life. All of this is not done to prevent scientific research,
but it may make it more difficult. It is now widely accepted that researchers should take reasonable
measures to minimize suffering in research animals, sometimes at significant cost to the project.

Carl Cohen is a prime example of someone who is in favor of a more conventional approach that
supports research on animals.

Cohen thinks that the tremendous benefit to humans from animal research outweighs any possible
suffering on their part. Efforts are and should be made to prevent mistreatment of research animals.
Cohen does not believe it makes sense to speak in terms of animals having moral rights, even limited
rights not to be tortured, though Cohen would think it is wrong to torture animals. Cohen’s view is that
to have moral rights, a creature must have the capacity to have their own moral duties or engage in
moral reflection or deliberation. While humans can do this, non-human animals cannot. Research
animals therefore are not part of the moral community and can have no moral rights.

Animal Rights Advocacy

Diverse opponents who we will collectively refer to as "animal rights advocates" hold a stance
opposing both traditional and more contemporary viewpoints that support animal research. While some
advocates acknowledge that animal research has benefited humans, others argue that this benefit has
been exaggerated and could have been obtained in other ways. However, they believe that no
advantage gained from using animals in research could justify its morality.

Animal rights activists have a variety of unique opinions, including:

 Animals are not meant to be used by humans in any way. Their lives are their own.
 When an animal is used for study or killed for food or clothing, its moral rights are violated.
 Despite the existence of controls intended to stop it, mistreatment of study animals occurs
frequently
 The agony that the animals endure during study is greater than any benefits to humans.
 The benefits of using animals in research are largely overstated; many of the studies findings are
meaningless or irrelevant (because animals are not like humans, and the results sometimes need to
be clarified), or they could have been obtained in other ways.

Arguments concerning factual (empirical) and moral considerations are at conflict in the discussion
between proponents of animal research and animal rights activists. disputed factual concerns consist
of:

 whether or not animal research yields meaningful scientific outcomes

 if alternative methods could have produced outcomes that were comparable to or the same, and
 if sufficient precautions are in place to prevent abuse of research animals.
Moral issues include:

the moral status and moral rights, if any, possessed by nonhuman animals, and

whether research animal suffering is justified in light of the benefits of such research to humans.

This latter issue has empirical aspects too, because it involves answering factual questions of how
much suffering occurs to research animals and how much humans really benefit from animal research.

Factual issues:

It is undeniably true that using animals in medical research has benefited humans in many ways.
Examples include the creation of antibiotics, measles and polio vaccines, and surgical methods like
joint replacements and organ transplants. Family pets have benefited from rabies and distemper
vaccinations that were created through animal research. Even if a lot of this was completed before
computers were widely accessible, it's difficult to believe that all of this was accomplished through
computer modeling. However, it is important to think about whether additional non-animal testing
could be used in the future for some types of study to achieve similar results.

Moral issues: The moral issue of whether human benefit justifies animal suffering and sacrifice itself
has both moral and factual aspects:

 what constitutes human benefit (moral) and how to quantify that (factual)
 how to value the life of a research animal (moral)
 what constitutes animal suffering and sacrifice (moral) and how to quantify that (factual), and
 how to compare benefits and sacrifices across species (moral and factual).

Conclusion

We human beings have moral rights to life and liberty means others are not free to harm individuals or
ordinarily interfere with their free choices. Why do humans have moral rights to life and liberty? We
thinks it is because humans are subjects whose lives matter to them; a human being is (in his terms) a
“subject-of-a-life.”

But then nonhuman animals are likewise subjects-of-a-life. Nonhuman animals are aware of what
happens to them and what happens to them matters to them. Their lives can go “better or worse for
them.” They are subjects, not just objects, and one can say in the case of a nonhuman animal there is
“somebody there.” So, we conclude that like humans, nonhuman animals have moral rights to life and
liberty.

We hold that the use of animals in research violates their moral rights. Subjecting an animal to
suffering and death as part of scientific research violates the animal’s rights to life and to live that life
in a way meaningful to the animal. Their rights “trump” any purported justification of animal research
as benefitting humans.