I'm developing my prompt around animal testing and making an argument that Animal Testing is permissible for the sake of the human race, mainly due to the amount of value humans can contribute to the world compared to animals. Here is a basic argument:
1. Human lives have more valuable than animal lives. (I go detailed into explaining this, bringing in potential value to the world and contributions to a progressive society)
2. Humans gain benefit from animal testing.
3. Animal testing is permissible.
Of course, opposing arguments would take this type of form:
1. Animals have feelings and can feel pain.
2. Animal testing harms animals.
3. It is wrong to cause harm to beings with feelings.
4. Animal testing is wrong.
I'm thinking a good chunk of my paper will be devoted to answering objections because there are many, many reasons why people think animal testing is not permissible. Yet, it is hard to beat the point that human lives have the potential to contribute more value than animal lives.
Thoughts?
An important objection you might have to address is the fact that humans also have the potential to harm the world more than animals can. For instance, we humans have polluted the environment far more than animals ever could.
ReplyDeleteTo address this, perhaps you should have a counterargument somewhere along the lines that the potential humans have to help the world outweighs the potential we have to harm it.
Another important objection may be the fact that some animals could, from a certain perspective, contribute more to the world; in other words, not all humans may be more valuable than animal lives. For instance, a guide dog who helps a blind person navigate could technically help the world more than a disabled person who unfortunately cannot make much active contribution.
To address this objection, you would either have to make a concession or show how the humans in these scenarios make the world a better place (value simpliciter), e.g. via their interactions with others or something like that
A potential objection will be the case that: if the our human being need some particular animal to testing some medicine for some particular human disease. However, it turns out that the particular animal is the very endangered specie on Earth. And even more unfortunately, the medicine that we developed is only efficient on that animal specie. Now, do we still we use that animal for testing?
ReplyDeleteThe nice thing about the potential objections, such as the one noted directly above, is to show how extremely specific the objections have to get in order to try an come up with a counter argument. Which just shows how strongly your theory is. Also, if you look at this from a 'consequentialist' sort of view, the potential benefits from animal testing presumably far outweigh the moral wrongness of hurting animals. Therefore, the objection is falsified. Just a few thoughts.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting point I find here is that how you would define the value that humankind creates. So far as we’ve seen, it seems like the most of values that created by people are really just beneficial to human themselves (or to better the environment so that people can live better) not to the planet as a whole. Nevertheless, if the animal testing is for developing the cure for animals themselves, then it’s certainly permissible. As for the animal testing for the benefit of human, it really depends on what theory you are using to analyze.
ReplyDeleteWell, I would differ a bit on value that humankind creates to the planet as a whole. I feel whatever is beneficial to humans are also beneficial to the planet since humans form a subset of the planet. I also feel that whatever the theory is used to analyze animal testing for the benefit of human, it should lead the same result.
ReplyDeleteFor your first point about animal lives. Is there any point in which human lives are NOT more valuable. For example human being that is in a vegetable like state, and will be like that for the rest of his life. In this way he will only be taking stuff away for society. For the third point in the second set of points, it is wrong to harm animals, but I think you are forgetting, or I guess a counter argument would be that although it is causing harm to animals. In the long run the objective is to cause less harm to them. So by this does that mean overall that we are helping them, causing that point to be invalid? A way to put this in the bigger picture. When you go to the doctor you get an injection, or a blood test. This hurts a lot but in the long run it will cause you less pain.
ReplyDelete