Is Animal Testing Justified?

[Porge]

Is Animal Testing Justified? Read question online and noticed it stirred up a massive debate and it really got me thinking.
50 to 100 million animals (per year) are bred or caught in the wild and used purely for scientific experiments.
Humans have superiority over animals and that is generally a fact, it also states it in the bible for those who are religious (I am not religious.)


I always believed animal testing was wrong but I also was aware that it had to be done. The pain and suffering the animal goes through is greatly outweighed by the potential benefits of the outcome.
Your thoughts?

(Did some research and got bits of information from the internet before I posted)

 

[SmokeHut]

It's awful. However, what's the alternative? No progression in medicine?

Unfortunately it's a case of whether you justify the suffering of animals for the progression of man. I personally think it's required as if not, there's no way to test therefore nothing will get signed off or released.

The numbers are disturbing though, there should be very strict guidelines as to what can be tested. Such as medicine, not chemical weapons.

 

[Atlov]

I try to look at it from both sides. It is a horrible thing, but then again, like SmokeHut has stated, there is no alternative really. But, I do not believe the animals should be tortured for our benefits. Our problems should be our problems alone. The whole testing medicine on the animals thing is a difficult call for me, but the testing hair products on animals is just fucking ridiculous.

 

[HotColdRush]

It's awful. However, what's the alternative? No progression in medicine?

Unfortunately it's a case of whether you justify the suffering of animals for the progression of man. I personally think it's required as if not, there's no way to test therefore nothing will get signed off or released.

The numbers are disturbing though, there should be very strict guidelines as to what can be tested. Such as medicine, not chemical weapons.

Human testing. Leave animals out of our affairs

 

Under reasonable circumstance, absolutely. There are cases where we could not have made certain breakthroughs/progressions in modern medicine without the use of animal testing (one case in particular is the vast improvement of quality of life in those with Parkinsons through experimentation on monkeys). Causing suffering with the express purpose of reducing total suffering in the world can be justified in my eyes... but then again that's probably the root of this debate - utilitarian/deontologic ethical systems (or, maybe speciesism - elevating the moral status of the human species above that of animals?)...

Consider this: I'm sure most can rationalize sacrificing 100 animals to save millions of human lives. But what about sacrificing 100 humans to save millions of animal lives?

 

[SmokeHut]

Human testing. Leave animals out of our affairs

The reason it's tested on animals is because of the impossibility to succeed doing it on humans.

First of all the humans would have to be willingly subjected, so therefore the numbers fall far short of what would be required.

Whilst it's fair to say "our advancement, our burden" it's not a solution. I'm not saying I agree with the testing. However, what's the alternative?

 

[uJesternWind]

Human testing. Leave animals out of our affairs

What else would you propose? With the sheer number of animal test subjects that are available, it's the only way to be able to test a large number of different solutions with a large sample size for each to ensure it works.

If you can figure out a cost-efficient way so that humans are actually motivated to sign up for potentially life-threatening testing then sure, human testing is the way to go (and that raises another ethical question in itself).

But for now, animal testing is the best bet we have.

 

What else would you propose? With the sheer number of animal test subjects that are available, it's the only way to be able to test a large number of different solutions with a large sample size for each to ensure it works.

If you can figure out a cost-efficient way so that humans are actually motivated to sign up for potentially life-threatening testing then sure, human testing is the way to go (and that raises another ethical question in itself).

But for now, animal testing is the best bet we have.

It's important to note that treatments ARE tested on humans but only after sufficient preclinical development time. Without proper research and testing done in animal experiments, it's obvious that far more harm would be done to human subjects, but then follows another point of contention: when do we move from preclinical trials to clinical trials?

 

I buy animals that have been slain and then cook their flesh and eat it.

I don't really care if they test products on animals as long as it isn't excessively cruel.

 

Under reasonable circumstance, absolutely. There are cases where we could not have made certain breakthroughs/progressions in modern medicine without the use of animal testing (one case in particular is the vast improvement of quality of life in those with Parkinsons through experimentation on monkeys). Causing suffering with the express purpose of reducing total suffering in the world can be justified in my eyes... but then again that's probably the root of this debate - utilitarian/deontologic ethical systems (or, maybe speciesism - elevating the moral status of the human species above that of animals?)...

Consider this: I'm sure most can rationalize sacrificing 100 animals to save millions of human lives. But what about sacrificing 100 humans to save millions of animal lives?

You we're the first person to actually bring actual ethics into the thread, nice job.

I would assume 'speciesism' more than anything else.

 

[Zethorum]

As others have stated we don't have much of a choice if we strive for medical advancement. We could never get enough humans willing to do the initial testings. As payment for their sacrifice we should try to give these animals the best life in the wild as possible and continue to protect their environments.

Maybe after enough breakthroughs and animal testing we will have sufficient information to use computer simulations to accomplish the same thing.

 

[Magickidkac]

It supplements the rest of humanity, and because humans are more intelligent than animals it justifies it.

 

It supplements the rest of humanity, and because humans are more intelligent than animals it justifies it.

I don't think we can use intelligence as a determining factor of ethical stature because that would mean we could extend this principle to also justify things like medical experimentation on the mentally retarded.

 

[Hansis]

Yes. I would choose a human life over animals any day of the week.

We use animals to test on for a reason, and we dont start testing on animals before we're pretty sure what we're doing is actually working.

 

[Ronaldo7]

Yes. I would choose a human life over animals any day of the week.

We use animals to test on for a reason, and we dont start testing on animals before we're pretty sure what we're doing is actually working.

I'd have to agree with this. We are infact the Apex predator, thus everything below us is subject to experimentation when need be. Does that make it just? I wouldn't know, but there isn't anything we can do about it. Obviously the best way to go about it would be to conduct these experiments as humane as possible.

 

Pain and suffering are an undeniable part of nature and the physical laws of our world.
With that being said, most people/all people (depending on what you believe) are born with innocence and the desire to do good. With this in mind, of course we don't like to imagine/see animals being used as test dummies. However, it has its place in nature. If that rat that wasn't harvested and tested were in the wild eventually he'd starve or be torn to shreds by something higher in the food chain.
Another think to consider is the idea that 99.999999999999% of the species on this planet have absolutely no recognition of "self." Therefore, they do not know who they are or that they exist. They are simply doing what their instinct and a few other mental states tell them to do. They wouldn't even know they were being tested on.
Our generation is way too pussified in many terms.

 

[jthory]

the progress that has come from animal testing is so great that it is justified in my eyes

 

[Saint Grimm]

I love animals and I hate to see them tested on - However, what else can we do?

In the future, maybe we'll develop a technology to test the effects of medicines and other products with that won't harm anything - But until then, better them than us.

Makeup being tested on animals was a HUUUUGE issue a few years back... And I understand how it's a bad thing - But if we had stopped testing on animals, and some of these "save the animals" people had bought some new makeup, put on eyeliner only to have their eyes bleed and be in excruciating pain, I'd assume their tune would change real quick.

 

[fragan77]

Its very justifiable. Without animal testing, progression in technology and sciences will come to a halt.

 

It needs to be done for testing and such, to improve our way of life