Can animal testing be justified? Alice Carr First Year
Animal testing is the use of non-human animals to create new medicines and test the safety of products. Overall people take two approaches toward animal testing. A teleological approach is one in which it is decided whether an action is right or wrong depending on the consequences; in contrast to this there is the deontological approach in which it is decided whether the action is right or wrong depending on the action itself.
must outweigh the potential animal suffering. Someone who holds a teleological view may state that even though the animal being tested on is harmed the benefits gained to humans justify the means. People who believe that testing on animals is moral may believe that humans are distinct from animals. As Peter Singer states, these people: ‘Are interested in justifying certain human practices toward non-humans – practices that cause pain, discomfort, suffering and death.’
Without animal testing, treatments including HIV drugs, antibiotics and more would never have been made.
I chose animal testing because it is still an extremely relevant issue with strong arguments on either side. Animal testing is still a heated debate within the fields of science, religion and philosophy. Animal testing leads to contrasting Buddhist and Christian views, because of their beliefs about the world.
On the one hand someone who takes a teleological approach to ethics might state that animal testing can be justified if the suffering of the animal is minimized in all stages of the experiment and if the human benefits gained could not be obtained using any other forms of testing. Those who take this teleological approach usually believe an animal has instrumental value, meaning the animal has no value in itself and that the animal is used to help us achieve something else.
On the other hand, someone who takes a deontological approach to ethics might state that animal testing is immoral because the animals can be injured or even killed during the testing process. Usually someone who takes this approach believes that an animal has intrinsic value and that the animal has value in itself and therefore should not be harmed. People who have this view strongly believe that any form of testing is immoral even when the laws are followed. As Peter Singer points out, someone who believes animals have intrinsic value may argue that: ‘While humans are different in a variety of ways from each other and other animals, these differences do not provide a philosophical
Animal testing has aided many of the medical advances of the past century, and still continues to aid our understanding of various diseases, products and cosmetics. In the UK it is illegal to test cosmetic products on animals (figures from the RSPCA). Since 1998 companies have not been able to buy or sell ingredients that have been newly tested on animals. These laws and agreements have been put in place to protect the animals and state that we only test on the animals if absolutely necessary for medical advances. Because of animal testing many people enjoy a better quality of life. Without animal testing, treatments including HIV drugs, antibiotics and more would never have been made. The benefits accrued 30
defence for denying non-human animals moral consideration.’ A deontologist might state that any form of testing can also lead to further abuse of animals. Laws have been made in order to protect the animals from being harmed in the testing process but these laws can be misused or even ignored. Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) is Europe’s largest animal testing company, but its employees have sometimes misused these laws. An example of this would be a secret recording by BAUV (a national cruelty free company) called “a dog’s life.” Whilst this was be-
