Home > Uncategorized > The long fight against animal testing

The long fight against animal testing

The long fight against animal testing

In his article, Peter Tatchell talks about the sense – or rather said the nonsense – of animal testing. He generates several arguments which clearly point out that animal testing is to no avail. 

I chose this article because I think that it is very close to our class discussion about animal testing and supplies good arguments against it.

One of his first arguments is directly connected to the arguments of philosophers like Jeremy Bentham or Peter Singer. Peter Tatchell hints at the “human-like attributes” that animals have, like language, reasoning, emotions, empathy or the feeling of pain. On the basis of this consideration Utilitarians state that our actions have effects on animals and that these consequences cannot be ignored. So, it is morally necessary to take animal pain and suffering into account. Therefore the imprisonment of feeling ceatures in laboratory cages is absolutely unethical.     

Peter Tatchell claims that the replacement of animals is possible in many spheres of medical research and that there are safe and effective alternatives. Besides it is not always possible to conclude from animal reactions to human reactions so that you would have to “re-discover using people”. 

Not least because of these arguments I also deny stoutly animal testing as animals do have a soul and can’t be seen just as our property. I have always had and still have pets and I know for sure that they do have nearly all the emotions that human beings have.

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. kherm
    October 26, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    When commenting on this article I like to relate my comment to the Utilitarian view.
    From the Utilitarian point of view higher animals are able to feel pain and for that reason it might be morally wrong and not justifiable to use animals for scientific testing. In this concept Jeremy Bentham pointed out that there would be no question if the animals could reason, nor if they could talk, but whether they could suffer. Thus, I generally agree with him and with Julia’s statement, because I really believe that pets have emotions and for that reason it is morally wrong to use higher animals for scientific testing.
    Furthermore, I would like to point out that it depends on the animals. Since the utilitarians talk about “higher animals” and not about animals in general, I think it might be justifiable to use mice for animal testing. In my opinion they do not have feelings or emotions like cats or dogs have and it is important to test medicine before treating human beings.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: