31 Can animal testing be justified? Alice Carr

Can animal testing be justified?

Alice Carr First Year

Animal testing is the use of non-human must outweigh the potential animal sufferanimals to create new medicines and test ing. Someone who holds a teleological view the safety of products. Overall people take may state that even though the animal betwo approaches toward animal testing. A ing tested on is harmed the benefits gained teleological approach is one in which it is to humans justify the means. People who decided whether an action is right or wrong believe that testing on animals is moral depending on the consequences; in con- may believe that humans are distinct from trast to this there is the animals. As Peter Singer deontological approach states, these people: ‘Are in which it is decided interested in justifying cerwhether the action is tain human practices toward right or wrong depending non-humans – practices that on the action itself. cause pain, discomfort, suffering and death.’ I chose animal testing because it is still an On the other hand, someone extremely relevant issue who takes a deontological with strong arguments approach to ethics might on either side. Animal state that animal testing is testing is still a heated immoral because the animals debate within the fields can be injured or even killed of science, religion during the testing process. and philosophy. Animal testing leads to Usually someone who takes this approach contrasting Buddhist and Christian views, believes that an animal has intrinsic value because of their beliefs about the world. and that the animal has value in itself and therefore should not be harmed. People On the one hand someone who takes a who have this view strongly believe that teleological approach to ethics might state any form of testing is immoral even when that animal testing can be justified if the the laws are followed. As Peter Singer suffering of the animal is minimized in all points out, someone who believes animals stages of the experiment and if the human have intrinsic value may argue that: ‘While benefits gained could not be obtained using humans are different in a variety of ways any other forms of testing. Those who take from each other and other animals, these this teleological approach usually believe differences do not provide a philosophical 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.

Without animal testing, treatments including HIV drugs, antibiotics and more would never have been made.

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 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-

ing filmed there was proof that HLS had broken some laws, for example by abusing a young beagle puppy in the testing process. Another horrifying story filmed during the documentary showed a young monkey being dissected alive.

as an animal is a major spiritual setback, this is because non-humans can’t engage in conscious acts of self-improvement’(BBC). They must continue being re-born as animals until their bad karma has worn off. Early Buddhists and modern Buddhists believe in two different approaches toward The handmade cosmetics company LUSH ethics. Early Buddhists took more of a strongly believe that animal testing is unac- teleological approach toward ethics. They ceptable. Lush claim that: ‘We recognise believed that as animals were spiritually that customer safety is of importance but inferior because they are unable to selfthat this can be assured without the use of improve consciously, they could use this to animals.’ Someone who is against animal justify harming animals. testing may state that if all companies had this view toward testing we could drastically reduce Buddhists believe in karma, that Similar to the Buddhist thinking, modern and early Christians how much we test on animals. souls are reborn as animals have slightly different views towards animals. Traditional Christians Buddhists believe in because of their believe that God cre‘Ahimsa’ or nonviolence towards past misdeeds. ated animals to benefit humans and that people animals. It seems at can do as they please first this view would instantly fall into with animals. For them animals do not have the deontological approach but under the souls or reason; they were deemed inferior. surface it becomes more complex. As the This shows that traditional Christians took BBC website states: ‘Buddhists say that a teleological approach towards animals. this (animal testing) is morally wrong if the animal concerned might come to any harm. Modern Christians have more sympathy However, Buddhists also acknowledge the towards animals and are less accepting value that animal experiments may have for ‘that there is an unbridgeable gap between human health.’ animals and human beings’ (BBC website.) Modern Christians also believe we are Some Buddhists acknowledge the fact that the stewards of the environment. This is even though it is immoral to harm animals, because the Bible shows that God did not sometimes it is necessary for the health of just make a covenant with humans; he also others. Buddhists believe in karma, that did so with animals. souls are re-born as animals because of Leading modern Christian writer on animal their past misdeeds. ‘Being reincarnated rights, Andrew Linzey, teaches that Christians should treat every living thing with the intrinsic value God gave it. This view is closer to a deontological approach. Animal testing is a conflicting on-going argument which is a major part of the advances made by our human generation. I believe causing harm to any sentient being immoral, but for medical advances I feel it is necessary. Until an alternative to animal testing is made, I feel it is crucial to continue testing, but only if absolutely necessary. I do not feel I simply take a deontological or teleological approach towards ethics; my view is closest to what modern Buddhists believe. This is because I feel if the laws are followed and the benefits gained outweigh the harm to the animal then the suffering of the animal is not pointless (much like the teleological approach). On the other hand the deontological approach suggests that animals have intrinsic value and therefore should not be harmed. I believe there is some truth in this.