Animal rights and animal experimentation [ENDS: 07/06/2011]

[Eoin247]

Animal rights and experimentation on animals.

The question of whether or not animals have rights has been asked many times throughout history. Animals have provided us humans with food, transport, entertainment and much more since before any written records were made. In more recent times animals have been used to provide scientists with subjects for their experiments.

The people that say animals have no rights would put out the argument that animals are unintelligent. They believe that since humans are far superior in intelligence to animals, humans should be able to do whatever they please to animals.

The people that say animals have rights would try to counter that argument. They would question why animals should suffer and have no rights simply for being less intelligent than us. Should less intelligent humans become slaves to more intelligent humans in that case?

One of the most controversial aspects of animal rights is probably experimentation on animals.
The most obvious benefit of this is that experimentation of drugs on animals might help cure human diseases. Lives and lifestyles of humans could potentially be saved!

On the other hand many people say that it's morally wrong to make animals suffer so much. Is it right to force animals to become test subjects and give them no choice in the matter? A lot of animals that are tested are very far away from any similarity to humans. Some animals like mice and dogs are used very early on in experiments to essentially see things like"If i inject this liquid in here, will he explode or not?". A lot of people argue that this experimentation is not necessary and drugs can easily still be developed without animals.

So do you believe animals have rights? If you do, then to what level do you believe they have rights? Should we torture and kill animals in cruel experiments to potentially enhance our understanding of things like medicine?

Debate!

This Debate will end on the 07/06/2011. Once the debate has ended the top contributer to this debate will recieve a month of VIP in a colour of their choice

[Mathew]

The people that say animals have rights would try to counter that argument. They would question why animals should suffer and have no rights simply for being less intelligent than us. Should less intelligent humans become slaves to more intelligent humans in that case?

This is a bit of an unrealistic and inappropriate comment in my opinion because there is a massive, clear difference between the intelligence of humans and that of animals. Animals have a completely different anatomy to humans and it doesn't take Stephen Hawking to work out that there is a strong possibility their intelligence is significantly lower!
Of course lesser intelligent humans shouldn't become slaves because that is stupidly immoral and goes against the British Psychological Society Ethics and Guidelines. This is the exact reason why they are in place.

One of the most controversial aspects of animal rights is probably experimentation on animals.
The most obvious benefit of this is that experimentation of drugs on animals might help cure human diseases. Lives and lifestyles of humans could potentially be saved!

This is the deal. If I'm not very much mistaken, animal testing goes ahead on mice and rats as they are vermin. Dogs, monkeys and the likes are only tested on when the product is just about to be released - naturally perhaps, because monkeys have the closest anatomy to us. I think this is fair enough, really. While I'm not a major fan of injecting monkeys with bleach-looking-liquids, it is indeed the lesser of two evils in the Circle of Life, as the opposition would be to inject it into a human. The world will turn, the ecosystem will continue and the Circle of Life will never end - we, as humans, are responsible for this and it is the widely accepted perception to keep our species the dominant one.

On the other hand many people say that it's morally wrong to make animals suffer so much. Is it right to force animals to become test subjects and give them no choice in the matter? A lot of animals that are tested are very far away from any similarity to humans. Some animals like mice and dogs are used very early on in experiments to essentially see things like"If i inject this liquid in here, will he explode or not?". A lot of people argue that this experimentation is not necessary and drugs can easily still be developed without animals.

I don't think dogs are "used very early on", but there is a strong possibility that mice are. Mice are vermin which means anyone is allowed to kill them. Experimentation is necessary and drugs cannot be easily developed without animals. Without them, you would have to either test them on humans or not at all - and which is the lesser of two evils?

So do you believe animals have rights? If you do, then to what level do you believe they have rights? Should we torture and kill animals in cruel experiments to potentially enhance our understanding of things like medicine?

Animals aren't tortured deliberately in experiments as that would go against the BPS Ethics and Guidelines. They aren't killed intentionally either.

At the end of the day, we must consider which is the lesser of two evils and look at whether we would rather test on vermin (which are allowed to be killed, anyway) or test on humans. Which is the most morally acceptable?
On that note however, this post has been considered with medicines in mind. If you were to aim the debate at cosmetics, then that is a whole new ball game as I find experimenting cosmetic treatments and products on animals is simply stupid, despite whether they are mice or not. Cosmetics are there to improve a human's life, whereas medicine is there to save a human's life. This is why animals sometimes have to test medicines, but it would be horrendous for them to test cosmetics.

[Narnat,]

Animals can't speak for themselves so they really have no say in it. I feel that it is rather cruel to do this because for instance if you injure and animal accidental they tend to yelp so they can feel it so what is to say they can't feel whatever is being done to them. It is basically torture. I think they're should be new ways found to test products rather than using it on a living thing. We all live in this world and many people say that we to are animals so why put them through the horror like that, it's like saying rules for one person and a different rule for another. Which is completely wrong!

[Rachel]

The people that say animals have no rights would put out the argument that animals are unintelligent. They believe that since humans are far superior in intelligence to animals, humans should be able to do whatever they please to animals.

I personally think that humans should respect the animals rights. Humans and animals has different capacity. We shouldn't abuse of this.

The people that say animals have rights would try to counter that argument. They would question why animals should suffer and have no rights simply for being less intelligent than us. Should less intelligent humans become slaves to more intelligent humans in that case?

Like I said before, animals and humans holds a certain amount of capacity. Animals are intelligent in the own way and humans has their own way of being smart.

One of the most controversial aspects of animal rights is probably experimentation on animals.
The most obvious benefit of this is that experimentation of drugs on animals might help cure human diseases. Lives and lifestyles of humans could potentially be saved!

I do agree that it helps us to know either the medication are good or not but it sometimes affect the animal's system and can kill them.

On the other hand many people say that it's morally wrong to make animals suffer so much. Is it right to force animals to become test subjects and give them no choice in the matter? A lot of animals that are tested are very far away from any similarity to humans. Some animals like mice and dogs are used very early on in experiments to essentially see things like"If i inject this liquid in here, will he explode or not?". A lot of people argue that this experimentation is not necessary and drugs can easily still be developed without animals.

I agree. I hate to see people testing things on animals. I mean how would you feel if they were doing the same thing to us? Vise versa.

So do you believe animals have rights? If you do, then to what level do you believe they have rights? Should we torture and kill animals in cruel experiments to potentially enhance our understanding of things like medicine?

I believe that animals should be respected like everyone else. I do see people abusing animals such as being cruel to them. This should stop.

[Mathew]

Animals can't speak for themselves so they really have no say in it.

This is why the BPS has set out Ethics Guidelines which must be followed with each and every animal.

I think they're should be new ways found to test products rather than using it on a living thing.

How? You're not going to get a clear picture of how the medication works without testing it on something which is living. I was under the impession that real human genes had been created a couple of months ago though, which could have some medicines tested on; I do suppose that is a set in the right direction.

I do agree that it helps us to know either the medication are good or not but it sometimes affect the animal's system and can kill them.

Would you rather they are tested on humans and we end up with 10 human lives being lost rather than 10 mice?

I agree. I hate to see people testing things on animals. I mean how would you feel if they were doing the same thing to us? Vise versa.

They wouldn't test on us because of morals. Animals are protected by guidelines which state unnecessary stress must not be placed upon the animal and animals must only be used in extreme circumstances; i.e. when the medicine is ready.

[Zeptis]

I'm not doing any of the qoutes as you can see, to much work, an I'm lazy
In the middle ages many, almost every person believed that each and ever animal on earth had no feeling, had no emotion, and felt no pain. Since this was the case, they abused them in many ways such as using them in fighting arenas and making them do farm work. There was no such thing as the domestic house pet, today i believe there may be some people left in the world who think the same, these people would be the people you see using them for make-up product testing. For some this may be true but for others its pure selfish greed, which often causes harm sometimes even death to an innocent animal. An example of this is dog and rooster fights often used to collect bets, every match either an animal dies or gets seriously injured. I don't think any animal deserves this no matter what it's past is.
Animals like humans deserve rights since most of them just live to love humans, and the only reason they put up with abuse is because they wish to please us. Since they do not protect themselves by choice that doesn't mean we have should beat them half to death when ever the hell we fell like it. But in some cases an animal becomes so fearful for itself it chooses to turn bad and kill anyone he/she sees at a threat.
Mainly my point is yes, i think animals deserve rights because without them bad thing may and probably will happen becaause of my points made above.

[Technologic]

Most of modern medicine begins with animal testing, i'm sure you'd choose to be protected against various nasties over protecting some rabbit somewhere

[AgnesIO]

To be honest, I would never put myself up for human testing, so I would be a hypocrite to say test on humans not animals.

[FlyingJesus]

Humans and animals has different capacity.

True - humans have the capacity to understand pain whereas animals simply react instinctively in all situations

I do agree that it helps us to know either the medication are good or not but it sometimes affect the animal's system and can kill them.

I would suggest that people as a whole would be far more willing to see a mouse die than thousands of humans using an untested product that's been released

I mean how would you feel if they were doing the same thing to us?

Completely different story. Testing on a sapient species is not the same as testing on non-sapient animals

In the middle ages many, almost every person believed that each and ever animal on earth had no feeling, had no emotion, and felt no pain.

This is still the case. Animal pain is a reaction to get away from something that threatens their survival or the survival of their species, nothing more

There was no such thing as the domestic house pet

Yeah there was

Animals like humans deserve rights since most of them just live to love humans, and the only reason they put up with abuse is because they wish to please us.

Whoa whoa whoa, the entire meaning of close to all animal life is to please humanity? Tell that to the HIV cells swimming around inside people. Tell it to the hungry lion who isn't going to stop and think of the moral implications before attacking if you're in a room with it. The meaning of animal life is to survive, not to give us cuddles

Mainly my point is yes, i think animals deserve rights because without them bad thing may and probably will happen becaause of my points made above.

Which bad things are these? You say it's your main point but you haven't mentioned anything about the world ending due to animal testing

[Hecktix]

This is a bit of an unrealistic and inappropriate comment in my opinion because there is a massive, clear difference between the intelligence of humans and that of animals. Animals have a completely different anatomy to humans and it doesn't take Stephen Hawking to work out that there is a strong possibility their intelligence is significantly lower!
Of course lesser intelligent humans shouldn't become slaves because that is stupidly immoral and goes against the British Psychological Society Ethics and Guidelines. This is the exact reason why they are in place.


This is the deal. If I'm not very much mistaken, animal testing goes ahead on mice and rats as they are vermin. Dogs, monkeys and the likes are only tested on when the product is just about to be released - naturally perhaps, because monkeys have the closest anatomy to us. I think this is fair enough, really. While I'm not a major fan of injecting monkeys with bleach-looking-liquids, it is indeed the lesser of two evils in the Circle of Life, as the opposition would be to inject it into a human. The world will turn, the ecosystem will continue and the Circle of Life will never end - we, as humans, are responsible for this and it is the widely accepted perception to keep our species the dominant one.


I don't think dogs are "used very early on", but there is a strong possibility that mice are. Mice are vermin which means anyone is allowed to kill them. Experimentation is necessary and drugs cannot be easily developed without animals. Without them, you would have to either test them on humans or not at all - and which is the lesser of two evils?


Animals aren't tortured deliberately in experiments as that would go against the BPS Ethics and Guidelines. They aren't killed intentionally either.

At the end of the day, we must consider which is the lesser of two evils and look at whether we would rather test on vermin (which are allowed to be killed, anyway) or test on humans. Which is the most morally acceptable?
On that note however, this post has been considered with medicines in mind. If you were to aim the debate at cosmetics, then that is a whole new ball game as I find experimenting cosmetic treatments and products on animals is simply stupid, despite whether they are mice or not. Cosmetics are there to improve a human's life, whereas medicine is there to save a human's life. This is why animals sometimes have to test medicines, but it would be horrendous for them to test cosmetics.

Whilst I agree with a lot of your views Matt, I need to highlight this part:

Animals aren't tortured deliberately in experiments as that would go against the BPS Ethics and Guidelines. They aren't killed intentionally either.

In psychological research (and let's remember the majority of animal research is not psychological therefore not covered by the BPS) if you are using an animal separated from parents, or an animal you have had in captivity for years doing different kinds of tests on - when you no longer need this animal, the BPS ethics guidelines state you must kill it in a humane manner as after a lot of psychological experiments the animals tend to be completely different to how they should be in behaviour and they wouldn't last in the wild etc, so the guidelines state to kill them.

I'm quite impartial on animal research, with being a psychologist I understand the importance of animals in behavioural research so I'm not really going to mention much on that. Product-testing research however, is something that gets me, I don't mind animals being used to test pharmaceuticals becaue as Mathew highlighted, it's the lesser of two evils than testing (and killing) humans, however cosmetic experimentation is absurd.