Like every issue that affects humanity, the case with testing on animals has two sides – for and against, vivisectionists versus antivivisectionists – both with their strong arguments. In fact the question of moral boundaries in experimenting on animals has recently become a global concern. In the end of the 20th century humanity has realized that have no rights over the other species. This is the case why fewer people enjoy the traditional Spanish Corrida or going on a safari in Africa. Nowadays killing animals for pleasure is considered wrong and has decreased throughout the history. Bernard Rollin, professor in bioethics and animal ethics in the University of Colorado argues that "Just as skin color or gender cannot morally justify discrimination against humans, certain beliefs about animals … cannot morally justify their exclusion" [] . My thesis is that there are no universal moral boundaries of the human towards the animal. The human is a unique biological being. So to answer the question, whether is right or wrong to use animals for experiments, if they are for the better of the people, the human mind would answer positively. But as beings, that have not only reason but morality, we are guided by ethical norms. Answering the question, whether is moral to exclude biological creatures, inferior to people, and what gives us the rights over the other creatures, the answer would be negative. It is not moral to test cosmetics on animals or to use animals for medical experimentations.

In order to fully understand the topic, one must understand what the word "moral" means, and why are corporations involved in testing and experimenting on animals. As we have all studied in Business Ethics corporations are highly structured legal organizations that "do indeed have some level of moral responsibility than the responsibility of the individual constituting the corporation" [] . The fact that it is a legal entity does not necessarily means that is a moral entity. There is a clear distinction between moral and legal. The fact that you have the right to experiment on animals does not mean that is the right thing to do! "Morality embraces a person’s beliefs about the appropriateness or goodness of what he does, thinks, or feels. [] In this sense every living being has the right to live its life without the inflicted outside suffering, made by testing on animals. One of the main arguments against experiments on animals is the pain that they are put through. Animals are not artificial being like machine to "mimic the pain behavior of humans" [] . According to the scientists of bioethics and animal ethics animals feel more terrifying pain than the humans: "To say that they feel less because they are lower animals is an absurdity; it can easily be shown that many of their senses are far more acute that ours–visual acuity in certain birds, hearing in most wild animals, and touch in others". [] This is because animals cannot understand the reason why pain is inflicted on them, neither to realize, that it is going to end in a particular moment. Humans, on the other hand, understand and can predetermine the outcome, making the pain less acute.

The antivivisectionist position, on the other hand argues that human kind is superior over the others and have the right to do whatever they wish to do. Their argument is that there is clear distinction between human and animal and there are certain features that we possess that animals do not. Animals do not have souls, reason, rationality, language and interest in living, while humans strive for development and possess all the above mentioned features. The relationship between human and human is different than the relationship between human-animal. An animal cannot distinguish and realize such statement and therefore cannot be a part of it. There is no way of applying the moral principles in the relationship between humans. Animals are not reasonable and should not be included in the human codex. Reason in this sense is directly connected to language and since animals do not have language they don’t have reason too. This leads to the conclusion that "animals are merely means to an end. That end is man." [] 

I cannot accept this extremist position of the antivivisectionists that we are the superior creatures therefore we have the power to do whatever we want with the inferior creatures. Excluding animals from our moral code is unprincipled and in my opinion puts the certain group of people along sexists and racists. Richard Hull argues in his article "Philosophical Foundations of Animal Experimentation and its Critics" that animals do have souls, feel pain, have reason and have their language, although different than ours. Soul is generally accepted as something that remains after your physical life has ended. Death in this sense is considered to be a loss. If animals do not have souls, then the end of their life is not a loss. He puts stress on the argument that claiming that animals do not have souls is paradoxical: "… insofar as animals do not survive death, it may not legitimately be asserted to be a harm for them; but, insofar as they are not able after death to experience redress for wrongs committed upon them during life, they have a stronger claim to moral consideration than to humans for whom an afterlife may offer the opportunity for such redress." [] 

Rationality does not belong only to man but can be seen in the behavior of animals too. The mere fact that animals are used for experiments implies that that animals and man do have a lot in common. Rationality is used when analyzing a certain situation in order to find the most suitable solution. Behavior of rationality does not necessarily mean that you need a language in order to be rational. Animals do not need universal language to be rational. Moreover animas are used as behavior models to study human behavior. Reasoning can be also seen in animals when they are outside the boundaries of training. Reason gives us the ability to think and plan. We use language in training animals which is to remember, think and react in certain circumstances.

Defining what rights animals have, and whether animals stand below us or we all species are equal is difficult task. It is false to say that human and animal are equal and at the same time that do not have any rights. There is no legally binding contract between animals and people like it is between people because only one side is expressing its voice – humanity. There are two groups of people who are concerned with the rights of animals – animal welfarists and animal rights activists. During the last century the emphasis of the animal welfarists groups was that animals ought to be treated "humanitarian" and the pain that they suffer during experiments and testing to be as less as possible. They acknowledged the fact that animals are used as a mean for people but concentrated more on supervising the process and reducing the pain. Animal rights activists’ position is that animals are feeling creatures that have rights, and are against the institutional exploitation of animals. Bernard Rollin argues that rights are moral category and come from the respect of the individual. Animal Rights activists deny regulations over exploitation of animals, because the purpose is human interests. The main emphasis is that any use of animals, whether is for food or experiments is in violation, not because it will cause animals to suffer but because it is in conflict with the fundamental obligations of justice of people towards animals. It that sense it is similar to feminism because it denies the "instrumentalism" of species and the treatment of means to an end. Almost every organization that argues for right of animals (PETA, HSUS,NAVS) support in their campaigns the laws for protection of animals, reducing the experiments and testing on animals. At the same time the above mentioned activists have the ideology for right is "utopist" and argue that animals ought to be accepted as equal. Because of their acknowledgment and their achievement, in every organization that is involved in experiments on animals there is a special department, developing alternative methods. The principle of these organization is also known as "the triple R" [] – reduction; refinement; replacement, with its purpose to develop new methods using digital data.

Drugs and chemicals are massively used for cosmetics or food additives are usually tested on animals in order to understand their effect on a living creature, before going out on the market. The animals that are experimented on do not have an effect on the balance of nature, despite their numbers. These animals are mainly mice, frogs, rats and other species in smaller numbers. The problem with these tests is that as much as animals are similar to human (rationality, feelings, and reasoning) the structure within the bodies is different. Using animals for experiments are the closest they can get to the human structure, otherwise testing on human will give a definite result. That is why the results of the reaction of animals experimented on does not necessarily mean that it will have the same effect on human. A classical example for this is the chemical thalidomide [] . It was massively distributed in the market during the 60’s aimed to decrease the toxicity during pregnancy. Between 1956 and 1957 vast numbers of future mothers have been taken it and the result was that their babies were born with deformities. I will not put much detail on the case although it is considered to be "the biggest medical tragedy of modern time" with victims between 10 and 20 thousand. Thalidomide was previously tested many times on animals and did not show any side effects on primates and rabbits. But when used in humans it showed devastating effects.

Testing on animals and using them for experiments in my opinion is self-centered and egoistic. Animals do feel pain like humans, feel fear like humans, and have reason and rationality. Medicine should do as much as possible to help human kind. Considering our current historical situation this could not be achieved without experiment on animals, but where possible, experiments with animals should decrease to a minimum, and so must the pain. Less than two centuries Afro-Americans were not considered to be human beings therefore were raised to become slaves. It was not so far ago when Gypsies and Jews were thought to be a lower life form and were systematically killed in concentration camps and were used for medical experiments. All the above mentioned ethnic groups were considered closer to human beings than animals. As much as we were wrong with them, I do believe society is doing the same mistake with animals.

Article name: Is It Moral To Test Cosmetics On Animals Philosophy essay, research paper, dissertation

Make Assignments Great Again

24/7 customer support: philosophy/122907-is-it-moral-to-test-cosmetics-on-animals.html