Paper Summary:

This paper presents a look at the debate on animal rights before analyzing the various arguments and coming to a considered opinion. The paper first considers the purely teleological arguments of J.M. Loeb and others. Next, the paper takes a deontological stance, but where the duty is towards humans and humane sensibility rather than towards animals. The paper also points out the fault in according rights to animals, which relies on a misreading of Locke (rights do not come from rational choice but moral choice). The shortcomings in the purely teleological arguments are also pointed out.

From the Paper:

" The use of animals in scientific experiments incites horror in many. At the same time no one can deny that such experiments deliver benefits to society. This gives rise to the fundamental debate as to whether scientific experiments on animals can be deemed to be moral. With the advance of science and technology more and more new products are coming into the market, and the necessity arises of testing the safety of these products. Testing on humans is unanimously deemed unethical, and the next logical step is to test on animals. The effect on animals may not entirely reflect the possible effect on humans, yet they nevertheless provide valuable indications. The most contentious area is in medical research. Here the moral arguments for and against are most severe. Testing drugs and techniques on animals potentially saves lives. At the same time they subject animals to the most severe pain. Naturally, there are strong arguments both for and against animals in scientific experimentation."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Levine, C (1991). Taking sides: clashing views on controversial bioethical issues. Dushkin Pub. Group.
• Loeb, JM, Hendee, WR, Smith, SJ, & Schwartz, MR (1989). Human vs. animal rights: In defense of animal research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 262, 2716-2720.
• Machan, TR (2004). Putting humans first: why we are nature's favorite. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Regan, T (2004). The case for animal rights. University of California Press.
• Regan, T, Singer, P (1976). Animal rights and human obligations. Prentice-Hall, 1976.

Visitors who viewed this Analytical Essay also liked these:

• Persuasive Essay # 148327 : "The Ethics of Zoos"
• Term Paper # 124458 : "Animal Research"
• Argumentative Essay # 28112 : "Animal Research"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: