Animal rights
Name
Institution Affiliation
Course
Instructor
Due Date
Animal rights
Activities that exist to fight for animal rights are just as passionate as the activists who do fight for the rights of human beings. These activists’ main argument is that animals are entitled to the most basic of rights which ensure that their existence is maintained and preserved. One such right is that animals should not be subjected to suffering. These activists, therefore, seek to impose these rights on others, hence giving them the responsibility of ensuring that animal rights are maintained. The main aim of the research will be on the animal rights that result from medical experimentation or clinical trials that are conducted on animals rather than on human beings. This issue will be looked at from an ethical perspective.
Summary
Animal rights are one of the most controversial issues when it comes to the treatment of animals. One school of thought believe that animals should be treated well and enjoy a significant amount of rights. On the other hand, another school of thought believes that animals should not be given the rights the same as human beings; hence the subject should not be controversial. The latter perspective has the stronger argument. Though they are living creatures just as human beings, they should not enjoy equal rights. Animals have a specific purpose which they help fulfil in this world. Their purposes differ according to culture and jurisdiction. In most cases, animals are sued as a source of food. In this case, the advocates for animals’ rights are against their killing. The more controversial use of animals is for an experiment on drugs and medicine. Some of the most used animals for experimental medicine are monkeys and rats (Ferrari, 2019). All these uses are necessary; hence they are okay.
Ethical Theories
The key ethical theory that will be in use is the utilitarianism theory. In summary, utilitarianism theory posits that the end justifies the means. According to utilitarianism, the outcomes or the end justifies the methods which were used to arrive at it. Therefore, if an outcome is a good and positive, the means that were used to reach it is irrelevant (Killoren & Streiffer, 2020). The utilitarian application of animal rights is direct, especially on the animals medical testing procedures. Many animals indeed die in the course of these procedures, whereas others are permanently damaged. However, the success that is witnessed through these processes has aided the successful testing and discovery of important medicine. Besides, it is more palatable for animals to suffer instead of humans.
Another important ethical theory that applies to this case of animal rights is the social contract theory. According to the social contract theory, members of society have moral and political obligations to each other. The social contract, therefore, requires an individual to live by and respects the rules that are present within the jurisdiction they live in (Gaus, 2018). An excellent example is the USA. The social contract is first and most importantly enshrined in the constitution of the USA. It, for example, has the bill of rights, has the dos and don’ts of every person, and gives issues such as voting rights, drinking age, among many others. The residents of the USA, be they citizens or non-citizens have to abide by these social contract rules that are enshrined in the constitution. The social contract theory, therefore, also includes the laws, rules, and regulations governing animal rights. The issue of animal rights is covered in the US constitution. Within the constitution, there is also a provision for the use of animals in medical testing and experimentation. Such medical testing and experimentation, however, have to take place under a controlled environment, and the animals sometimes have to be put down or killed after the experiment has been concluded. Animal rights activists must, therefore, argue their cases and point of view based on these constitutional provisions.
The last ethical theory in use that is relevant to this issue of animal rights is the categorical imperative theory. According to Donaldson (2017), the categorical imperative is a Kantianism theory which advocates for doing something morally right and fulfilling one duty to humanity. Categorical imperative, therefore, identifies actions on things that human beings ought to take, but only if there is a particular end-game in mind or the achievement of a certain goal. This theory fits into the narrative of animal rights. Categorical imperative requires that the researchers into medicines and other health procedures have an outcome that is safe for human beings. Such an outcome would not be safe if the tests and medical experiments were done on human beings. The effect would be widespread, including the family and friend of such an individual. This is because some of the effects include death, impairment, and chronic pain, among many others. However, if the tests were to be done on animals, then the ultimate goal of developing advanced medicine would be achieved. This goal would be reached by hurting animals rather than hurting human beings. Such an eventuality is palatable to anyone; hence the rights of human beings significantly trumps the rights of animals.
Conclusion
Animal rights is a contentious issue. However, the bottom line should that human rights trump animal rights. Medical experiments and clinical trials on animals are therefore palatable. This can be explained by three main ethical theories. They are the categorical imperative, utilitarianism, and social contract theory.
References
Donaldson, C. M. (2017). Using Kantian ethics in medical ethics education. Medical Science Educator, 27(4), 841-845.
Ferrari, A. (2019). Contesting animal experiments through ethics and epistemology: In defense of a political critique of animal experimentation. In Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change (pp. 194-206). Brill.
Gaus, G. (2018). Self-organizing moral systems: Beyond social contract theory. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 17(2), 119-147.
Killoren, D., & Streiffer, R. (2020). Utilitarianism about animals and the moral significance of use. Philosophical Studies, 177(4), 1043-1063.