The Problem of Human Cruelty to Animals

In all fairness, and in all matters of life, including medicine and health science, the state of the human race is foremost, before any other considerations are made. This is why there is the use of non-human animal testing in medicine as a course. It should not be lost that this kind of argument is critical as it brings into focus, the big issues that professionally and ethically need to be explored with deep thoughts and a definitive answer were given. Notably, animals have rights too. This is a pronouncement that not most people quite agree with. Cruelty to animals for purposes of experimentation and for entertainment is in itself wrong.

Scientific research is inexorably linked to animal experimentation in human history and popular imagination. Many of the spectacular inventions in the treatment and medical understanding of contemporary human maladies have been mainly based on inquiries that make use of animals through experiments. Nonetheless, animal use in research as well as in experimentation has been a matter of debates in recent times (Engel, 19). The proponents have defended the use of animals in experiments while the opponents of the idea have protested their use by both organizations and individual scientists at various levels. The reactions to this act range from personal decisions touching on lifestyle to the fervent philosophical that treatise to the strident postulates, violent demonstrations as well as direct actions. The gamut of attitudes on animals as well as on human relations with the animals spans a continuum between the individuals who are in support of the vice. Those against the vice are condemning the act while at the same time advocating for an absolute liberation of these animals from human use. Those in support of the idea are of the opinion that the animals be used in the experimentation without any established regulation on how they are used in these scientific inquiries.

The amount of attention, scholarship, and activism that relates to the use of animals for experimentation have been on the rise in recent times. The contemporary animal protection movements have based their arguments and campaigns on the ability of the animals to feel sufferings and pain whenever they are used in these experiments.

As has been established, the debate on the use of animals for experimental purposes ranges from two broad, distinct questions. Firstly is to establish whether or not, the animal experiments bear any meaningful knowledge that can only be derived from the animals and not other things else. The other question is on the concerns of whether or not the use of animals for experiments is ethically and morally acceptable for organizations and individuals to make use of animals in their experiments. These ways are evidential that they cause harm to the animals. These issues relate to each other. That is to say, if no one would learn anything useful and unique from the studies and experiments that inflict pain on animals, then it would definitely be difficult for them to see how in the world, on any understandable view, it merits moral justification. Therefore, the issue of scientific justification is fundamental to the issue of moral justification (Dawkins, 23).

Nonetheless, a positive and most justifiable answer to the scientific inquiry does not entirely depend on the morality aspect of it, since in some cases, it might turn out that an experiment that bears more benefit to the society is that which does not merit the moral and ethical acceptance. Therefore, this matter at times merits the subjective classification. Therefore, it is important to take into account, as a matter of principle, the arguments that support the use of animals in experiments and those that vehemently oppose the practice.

According to the available statistics, close to 35 million animals are used in experiments annually, the United States of America alone makes use of 12 million animals yearly. This is a figure that surpasses those of other countries.
The proponents of the idea of using animals in the experiment have held that the animals are used so that there is scientific progress in the fundamental and applied biological as well as medical science. There is a section of the populace who would be opposed to the fact that science is a vital and equally powerful tool for ensuring that individuals understand the natural world. It makes use of methodological observations and presenting the findings through recorded evidence, and having them relayed in carefully crafted experiments that will make it easier for all and sundry to understand. It is on this basis that most scientists still maintain that experiments involving animals for experimentation remain crucial in the continuation of progress (Orleans, 13).
There are few principles and establishments upon which the arguments by the proponents of the practice are drawn.

They include the following:

If certified, as it should be the case, that preventing human suffering is a man’s moral obligation and call, then the application of animals in such experiments is not available.

They also derive their arguments from the fact that man must attend to the sick and also save the lives of both humans and animals. To achieve this, man must improve his knowledge and prowess in biology, veterinary and human medicine. This is the foremost reason why man does animal research where since there are no appropriate research methods.

On the basis of the presented arguments, one would be tempted not to question any further, these misgivings. However, being a matter that is debatable, there are reasonable grounds to challenge these issues. Away from the justifiers, some people believe that the use of pain and harmful methods of one animal by another, but without their consent is morally unethical. This is irrespective of whether it is beneficial or not. This, therefore, means that all inquiries that deal with animal research should be abolished forthwith.

The opponents of the practice have maintained that those in need of carrying out their research studies should come up with more certified, and formidable ways of getting the information they so desire. They can achieve this endeavor by using human tissue or human volunteers. Those on the flip side of things are of the argument that there are significant study questions that can only be answered through the use of animals and that their use only comes to the fore when their need is under absolute necessity. Funnily, they attempt to question the proponents of whether the society would also accept or reject the idea of abandoning the research altogether. They then ask if the society is ready to live with the consequences of the same and if this will be the same case in the entire community.

From this presentation, this task sets out to front two key questions. Firstly, how significant is alleviating the suffering of both animals and humans? This question should have in mind the fact that the practice causes pains, suffering as well as distress to the animals that are involved in research. The other question this task chooses to ask is why people should make use of animals in experimentation in such cases as can be welcome in humans. At the very critical stage and fundamental hour, the question that arises, in principle, is whether there can be a moral obligation in undertaking research in a bid to alleviate the sufferings of either humans or animals. On the basis of a given perspective on the status of duties and responsibilities coming from the things that we value and those that we don’t, one would come to the conclusion that such a duty does not exist. From such provision, the best bet would be that the strongest available moral necessities are negative, and this applies to those things that we should omit (Anthony, 6).

There is a general agreement that a plausible argument fronting the morally relevant disparities between particular kinds of action exist. While forceful reasons for pursuing acts compared to omissions may be lacking, it should be remembered that there isn’t a single moral obligation and standing to carry out research that would alleviate human agony. In the first instance, the obligation may end up being less strong. The other fact could be that there could be a prima facie moral and ethical duty fronted to help alleviate human suffering through actions, as long as the study efforts are in line with the degree of the suffering is alleviated. Be that as it may, it remains an issue that is yet to be resolved given the grey area covering the matter. It remains to be seen if such action or obligation would automatically sanction the application of animals in experiments. This type of obligation only relates to the code of alleviation of suffering, as opposed to the prescribed ways after that suffering is to be attended to. In practice and principle, the mandate might as well be fulfilled through research that makes not, the use of animals in their experiments and that provided they have alternative methods (Dawkins, 31).

There is the school of thought with the idea that suffering induced by experiments from animals is always outdone by the fact that human disease is a burden that is only reduced by pharmaceutical inventions, and therefore, could lead to some form of over-simplifications. It is worth noting that the health of humans is controlled by spectrum from different types of diseases and the consequent suffering.

Therefore, the justification of the use of animals in research becomes more challenging, especially when the disease so being attended to, could have been prevented through the individuals practicing good human behavior. Thus, the generalization of the necessity to keep using the animals in experiments is very unhelpful and denigrating. In other instance, the animal pain and suffering is weighed directly against that which is human.