In contrast, animal welfare takes the position that it is morally acceptable for humans to use non-human animals, provided that the testing minimizes animal use and suffering. The debate between those who support animal research and those who don’t is often portrayed in such a way that one group appears to care about animals while the other group doesn’t. This isn’t the case at all. Fundamentally, the issue is about how to reduce the total suffering for both humans and animals and it can be done by raising concern over
From this Moore claimed that it is impossible to derive an ‘is from an ought’. This criticism became known as the naturalistic fallacy. In addition to this G.E Moore claimed that naturalism was not able to stand up to the open question argument. ethical naturalism claims to be based on moral facts, it would therefore seem logical that these facts should stand up to scrutiny. Yet, if we observe that pleasure is good, we should be able to ask is good pleasure.
Is it intelligence that determines the animal’s self-worth and right to live, or is it that animals may possess the same if not identical Neuroanatomy of humans? Suzuki’s primary question examines if the rational behind animal testing is that these animals are dissimilar to human beings; therefore, pain can be inflicted upon these animals without guilt. Suzuki purposes, whether or not the animals need be so close to the human species for the results to be meaningful; Suzuki furthers this inquiry, through his demonstration of logos and ethos. When Suzuki explains the research he has conducted on fruit flies as an alternative to the more commonly used mammals;
Thus, since cultural relativism states that we can’t judge other cultures moral codes, then we must be tolerant of them. The Cultural Relativism theory generates an argument in a form of proposing a conclusion about morality based upon facts of a culture. For example, infanticide is a moral code of the Eskimo society. The Eskimo’s believe that infanticide is morally acceptable while American’s view infanticide as iniquitous. As a conclusion, infanticide is not right or wrong because it depends on the cultures opinion and beliefs about infanticide.
Ethics on use of animals for research The early Greek philosophers valued reason above all else, and ascribed little moral value to animals and even to other humans that did not possess this attribute. While this viewpoint might be viewed as extreme, from a biological perspective this might be seen as competition. Using the survival advantage given to us by our capacity for reason is no less moral or ethical than another animal using its adaptations to survive. However, it should be obvious that by allowing unrestricted human exploitation of animals, there is great potential for extirpation of species. Thus, we utilize animals for food and clothing; we keep them as pets or as livestock; we plant our crops, harvest wild plant products, and build our cities and highways where animals might otherwise have lived, but we do so with restrictions on our
When we belong to certain groups, most of the time we are unaware of how the socially derived structure actually affects us in the way which we behave. The difference between them is that personal identities are often biased, because we attribute our failure or success depending on our sense of self-worth. To define the sociocultural level of analysis social psychologists are defined by four principles. These principles are: 1. Human beings are social animals and we have a basic need to "belong" 2.
Several can cause human diseases that can damage us instead of helping us. Side effects cannot be detected in animals. Animals deliver data; nevertheless it’s the wrong data or different data. Humans need more precise, operative and safe results. According to the book of evolution by Charles Darwin, Humans came from monkeys; on the other hand certain test that applies to monkeys does not apply to humans.
“Darwinism undermines both the idea that man is made in the image of God and the idea that man is a uniquely rational being” (Rachels, 1990). If man does not gain morality from a divine source then it must come from a different source, looking to evolution and other species, glimpses of moral behavior may be recognized. Research conducted at Emory University shows that chimpanzees and other apes are capable of altruism, sympathy, moral disapproval, sharing and even notions of fairness (Wade, 2007). These animals develop social and moral codes of conduct when living in groups, individuals, however, typically develop primitive moral reasoning at a highly reduced capacity. Humans, being highly social animals, develop morality and social codes of conduct at a rapid pace by necessity of being social animals.
What makes us human? To be human means to have the capability to determine right from wrong and make decisions based on what we think is right or wrong in any given situation. Animals do not decide things. They just do things based on instinct and necessity. Human beings, on the other hand, are a selfish species.
Due to this, some people feel that animals should be treated equally with human beings because just like us, they have rights too. Animals are fully aware of their existence and like humans, feel emotions and pain therefore by killing them for own benefit would be ethically incorrect. Just because they are unable to speak for themselves, it does not mean that humans can choose when their life ends. Furthermore, by killing an animal for the benefit of humans is also wrong because it is going against the sixth commandment ‘do not murder’. This is wrong, because as humans we must respect hashem and not disobey his commandments.