Why Choose Us?
0% AI Guarantee
Human-written only.
24/7 Support
Anytime, anywhere.
Plagiarism Free
100% Original.
Expert Tutors
Masters & PhDs.
100% Confidential
Your privacy matters.
On-Time Delivery
Never miss a deadline.
Instructions Articulate a specific dilemma in a situation faced by a particular person based on that topic
Instructions
Articulate a specific dilemma in a situation faced by a particular person based on that topic. The situation can be real or fictional.
- Summarize the dilemma.
- Define any needed key terms associated with the dilemma.
- Analyze the conflicts or controversies involved in the dilemma.
Reference and discuss any professional code of ethics relevant to your topic such as the AMA code for doctors, the ANA code for nurses, etc. State whether and how your chosen topic involves any conflicts between professional and familial duties or conflicts between loyalty to self and loyalty to a community or nation.
What in your view is the most moral thing for that person to do in that dilemma? Why is that the most moral thing?
Next, apply the following:
- Aristotle’s Golden Mean to the dilemma
- Utilitarianism to the dilemma
- Natural Law ethics to the dilemma
Which of those three theories works best ethically speaking? Why that one?
Why do the other two not work or not work as well?
Is it the same as what you said is the most moral thing earlier? Why or why not?
Philosophy Question – Outline Thesis Statement: Kantian ethics contradicts my moral reasoning that animal testing should only be allowed when the suffering that animals go through during testing is minimized. I. Question A. The individual’s perception of animals and the community’s or religious belief of animals may be involved in determining the moral position of either side in the animal testing debate II. Annotated Bibliography A. Fernandes, M, R., & Pedroso, A. R. (2017). Animal experimentation: A look into ethics, welfare, and alternative methods. Rev Assoc Med Bras, 63(11), 923-928. i. Fernandes and Pedroso give a short history of animal experimentation B. Francesca, P., & Ciccocioppo, R. (2020). “Public Perception of Laboratory Animal Testing: Historical, Philosophical, and Ethical View.” Addiction Biology, e12991– e12991. i. In the article, Francesca and Ciccocioppo claim that the animal testing debate is a sensitive discussion C. Kabene, S., & Baadel, S. (2019). Bioethics: A look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 12(15), 1-11. i. According to Kabene and Baadel (2019), animal testing elicits conflicting emotions in both its proponents and opponents D. Rinaldi, R., Cioffi, A., & Ciallella, C. (2020). Reflections concerning the legitimacy of animal testing. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 15, 1-3. i. Rinaldi et al., (2020) asserted that animal testing has been a controversial subject in both legislative and bioethical debates E. Siani, A. (2019). Discussing the use of animal models in biomedical research via roleplay simulation. International Journal of Ethics Education, 4, 43–55. i. In this article, Siani argues that animal experimentation is integral in scientific research Running head: PHILOSOPHY QUESTION 1 Philosophy Question Name Institution PHILOSOPHY QUESTION 2 Philosophy Question Question The individual’s perception of animals and the community’s or religious belief of animals may be involved in determining the moral position of either side in the animal testing debate. Influenced by my personal ethical factor, I see animals as having inherent value. On this basis, animal rights should be respected just like human rights. In respecting animals, it is immoral to subject animals to extreme pain during testing. Animals should not be used as means to humans end. Influenced by my community's ethical factor, I believe that animals are creatures like a human. Psalms 145:9 says, “God's compassion rests on all his creatures” (New Living Translation, 2015). This implies that animals and humans are on the same level in God’s eye. With respect to this, I am of the view that animals and humans should be accorded respect. Subjecting animals to pain for the sake of research is immoral. Overall, my position with regard to animal testing is that animals can be used in research as long as the pain or harm on them is minimized. According to the Kantian categorical imperative, moral rules have no exception (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). The maxim of a rule must be followed to the end. Moral obligations are categorical. Thus, it is not the desire of a person that determines the morality of an action. Something is moral if an individual would want it to be done universally (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). Therefore, the moral rules cannot serve the wishes of one person only. From a Kantian ethics perspective, animal testing should be either morally right or wrong. There should be no exemption as it is in my position. Kantian ethics would not support animal testing in totality. Kantian ethics contradicts my moral reasoning that animal testing should only be allowed when the suffering that animals go through during testing is minimized. Annotated Bibliography PHILOSOPHY QUESTION 3 Fernandes, M, R., & Pedroso, A. R. (2017). Animal experimentation: A look into ethics, welfare, and alternative methods. Rev Assoc Med Bras, 63(11), 923-928. Fernandes and Pedroso give a short history of animal experimentation. According to them, the use of animals in scientific experiments dates back to the 5th Century BC. However, their use has become more prevalent in the nineteenth century. Throughout this time, there have been calls by animal protection advocates to have animals substituted with other vertebrates. The concern for these advocates is that animals are subjected to a lot of suffering during laboratory testing. According to the authors, suffering is sometimes inevitable when animals are used in research. This is because animals are used to demonstrate. Instead, they are used to test new treatments, procedures, or drugs. Certainly, the outcomes of some tests may not be accurately predicted. The animal rights advocates have not been able to successfully cause a reduction in animal experimentation. This is because the use of animals in scientific research is quite widespread. So, changing the paradigm requires intense work. Nonetheless, animal welfare should be a common goal among all scientists. In light of this, scientists should work to reduce stress and suffering in animals used in experimentation. To achieve this, scientists should meticulously plan their experiments before starting them. With good planning, the unnecessary use of animals will reduce. Where possible, scientists should use alternative methods. The use of less risky methods in animal experimentation is also recommended. I chose this article because it is peer-reviewed. Moreover, the article contains the information that I needed for my research. Francesca, P., & Ciccocioppo, R. (2020). “Public Perception of Laboratory Animal Testing: Historical, Philosophical, and Ethical View.” Addiction Biology, e12991–e12991. In the article, Francesca and Ciccocioppo claim that the animal testing debate is a sensitive discussion. Some people call for abandoning the use of animals for scientific advances. PHILOSOPHY QUESTION 4 Another fraction of people supports the continued use of animals in research. Each side gives the rationale for its position. Animal experimentation did not start recently. The practice has been there for many centuries. Indeed, Darwin was a human experimenter. However, he did not support subjecting animals to suffering in the name of scientific research. The authors assert that Darwin was of the view that biomedical research must be regulated by some rules. This will protect the animals from the cruelty of some scientists. In the animal testing debate, it is good to consider the ethical aspect of animal experimentation. According to Francesca and Ciccocioppo, most people have been focusing on the historical, philosophical, and scientific aspects only. This widens the departure between the proponents and opponents of animal testing. From an ethical aspect, animals deserve some respect. Their lives have value. Humans cannot create any life. In this regard, scientists should balance between advancing scientific knowledge, and taking good care of the animal subjects. Once they do this, animal testing will have good ethical implications. When this is done, the usefulness of animals in scientific research will be realized. The authors of this article are recognized professors. Hence, they can authoritatively talk about the ethical implications of animal testing. This is why I chose the article. Kabene, S., & Baadel, S. (2019). Bioethics: A look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 12(15), 1-11. According to Kabene and Baadel (2019), animal testing elicits conflicting emotions in both its proponents and opponents. The essence of using animals as subjects in scientific experiments is to improve scientific understanding. Specifically is to increase understanding of pathology and anatomy. Animal testing has become more frequent in the twentieth century. Animal rights activists have been criticizing animal experimentation. One of the arguments they give is that experimentation subjects animals to great suffering. Hence, they consider it PHILOSOPHY QUESTION 5 unacceptable. This elicits emotions since animals don't naturally deserve to go through such pain for humans to benefit. Looking at it from another perspective, animal testing has promoted medical breakthroughs. Animals have been used in testing new drugs and treatments. These drugs have improved the safety of humans. Once a drug proves to be effective in animals, it is also effective in humans. This is because there are many common diseases between humans and animals. Without human testing, cures for many diseases would not have been found. Nonetheless, animals used in scientific research should be used in a humane way. Suffering should be minimized as much as possible. In light of this, the use of animals for medical tests is justifiable. Nevertheless, it cannot be justified for cosmetic tests. Using animals for cosmetic tests does not improve human safety or quality of life. I chose this article because it used both historical and statistical data. I needed this data to make my arguments. Rinaldi, R., Cioffi, A., & Ciallella, C. (2020). Reflections concerning the legitimacy of animal testing. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 15, 1-3. Rinaldi et al., (2020) asserted that animal testing has been a controversial subject in both legislative and bioethical debates. In the legal field, legislators are debating on the scientific usefulness of animals in science. The majority of the participants in this field consider testing as reducing the welfare of animals. Although they agree that animals are scientifically useful, they are of the view that possible alternatives should be sought. Recently, the research projects of Turin and Parma universities in Italy were suspended by the Council of State. The council argued that primates used in these projects were subjected to great suffering during the laboratory. According to the authors, the participants of the bioethical debate have been arguing over how animals in science can be used in an ethically acceptable manner. In light of this, the scientists acknowledge that not all animal testing is ethically acceptable. To this end, an argument on PHILOSOPHY QUESTION 6 whether the use of animal testing in science should diminish or whether to minimize is suffering in animal testing ensues. Either way, scientists seem to acknowledge animal rights. The rights emanate from the intrinsic value that animals have. In light of this, scientists recognize the importance of coming up with regulations that should guide scientists when using animals in research. The legislative debate on this issue also culminates in coming up with animal testing regulations. I chose this article because its authors are outstanding researchers on this subject. They have done a lot of research on the issue. Siani, A. (2019). Discussing the use of animal models in biomedical research via role-play simulation. International Journal of Ethics Education, 4, 43–55. In this article, Siani argues that animal experimentation is integral in scientific research. Scientists often use animal models to test scientific hypotheses. Siani asserts that humans are the beneficiaries of scientific research. The research has significantly improved human welfare. Moreover, it has advanced intellectual, social, and economic prosperity. Unfortunately, animal experimentation has ethical implications. In most cases, animals are put in peril. Given the value of research to humans, animal testing should not be banned. Instead, scientists should know that they have a social role. They should play the role concurrently during the scientific process. If animal experimentation is banned, humans would forego understanding the natural world. Hence, they will not enjoy the benefits that come from an understanding of the natural world. However, it should be known that these benefits cannot be of great value if they have an adverse impact on society. The author maintains that scientists prefer using animal models in their studies because the human body and animal bodies are structurally and functionally similar. In light of this, animal experimentation is as old as natural sciences. Because of the similarities between animals and humans, moral concerns are prevalent in animal experimentation. Animals PHILOSOPHY QUESTION should be respected. Scientists who handle animals with cruelty should be condemned. If this is done, the animal experimentation of future scientists will not have negative ethical implications. I chose this article because the author uses credible sources to support his arguments. 7 PHILOSOPHY QUESTION 8 References Fernandes, M, R., & Pedroso, A. R. (2017). Animal experimentation: A look into ethics, welfare and alternative methods. Rev Assoc Med Bras, 63(11), 923-928. Francesca, P., & Ciccocioppo, R. (2020). “Public Perception of Laboratory Animal Testing: Historical, Philosophical, and Ethical View.” Addiction Biology, e12991–e12991. Holy Bible, New Living Translation. (2015). New Living Translation. (Original work published 1996). Kabene, S., & Baadel, S. (2019). Bioethics: A look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 12(15), 1-11. Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York, NY: McGrawHill Education. Rinaldi, R., Cioffi, A., & Ciallella, C. (2020). Reflections concerning the legitimacy of animal testing. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 15, 1-3. Siani, A. (2019). Discussing the use of animal models in biomedical research via role play simulation. International Journal of Ethics Education, 4, 43–55.
Expert Solution
Dilemma Related to Animal Testing – Outline
Thesis Statement: The specific dilemma related to animal testing is that animal testing has harmful consequences on animals despite having some benefits for mankind.
- Introduction
- Suffering
- Suffering is inherent in animal testing
- Humans should be concerned about curtailing pain and advancing happiness
- The Killing of the Animals
- The majority of animal subjects in animal experimentation don’t survive
- Although the scientists do their best to help the human continue living, these animals die because of the natural reactions between animal’s body reactions to the experiments
- Availability of Alternatives
- Animals are not the only things that can be used in scientific experimentation
- Secondly, alternatives can be achieved through refinement
- Moral Status
- One of the greatest dilemmas concerning animal testing is the moral status of animals
- When the moral status of animals is respected, animals would be allowed to live their full life
- Conclusion
Dilemma Related to Animal Testing
Introduction
Since antiquity, humans have used animals to promote their welfare. Initially, they used it for transport, food, and companionship. In the 17th century, humans began using animals in experimental research. Since then, animal testing has been prevalent in scientific and medical studies. Indeed, it has been attributed to the development of many new medicines and treatment procedures. Certainly, animal testing causes suffering in animals. Sometimes, it reduces their quality of life and in other times, it ends their life. This leads to an ethical dilemma over the continued use of animals in experimental research. Many people have questioned the moral status of animal testing. This has led to the development of an intense debate on animal rights. The pro-animal rights argue that animals have equal moral standing with humans. In this regard, they call upon scientists to stop using non-human subjects in their scientific pursuits (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). On the other hand, the anti-animal rights argue that animals don’t have the same level of autonomy and cognitive ability as humans. In this regard, they don’t deserve to be treated humanely. There is no absolute neutrality in this debate. This is because the people who don’t support either side argue that the harms and benefits brought by animal testing should be evaluated (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). In light of this, animal testing should continue if the benefits outweigh the harms. On contrary, animal testing should cease of the harms outweighs the benefits. In this regard, the debate over the moral status of animal testing will never be concluded. This demonstrates the ethical dilemma surrounding this issue. The specific dilemma related to animal testing is that animal testing has harmful consequences on animals despite having some benefits for mankind.
Suffering
Suffering is inherent in animal testing. The animals used in experimentation experience great pain and distress. Essentially, anything that has harmful consequences to society is evil. Humans have a moral obligation of maximizing benefits and minimizing harm. Animal testing goes against this obligation. Animals are forced to endure great pain during the testing. They suffered diseases and injuries as new cures for diseases are tested (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). For example, in the testing of new cancer therapies, animals are induced with cancer-causing agents. This causes cancer in these animals. Moreover, when scientists want to test new vaccines, they vaccinate animals first. The vaccine may have adverse effects on them. Ultimately, new surgical techniques are developed. Although beneficial products are developed in the long run, significant damage to the animals may have been caused. Essentially, there is no guarantee for non-painful experimentation.
Humans should be concerned about curtailing pain and advancing happiness. Since this does not happen in animal testing, the use of animals in scientific testing is unethical. Rinaldi (2020) refers to the twenty-first century as the century of suffering. He argues that experimenters have consistently tortured animals. Animal testing in the twenty-first century has significantly increased. This is the reason why the scientific and medical advances have been more. A lot of experimentation is in progress right now. In all these testing, animals used are enduring pain. Certainly, their consent has not been sought. In the laboratory, some animals are subjected to experimentation while still conscious. Such animals endure more pain than those that are non-conscious (Doke & Dhawale, 2015). In this regard, animal testing has been a harrowing experience. Most humans would not like to watch. Ultimately, most animals are left paralyzed or deafened after the experimentation.
The Killing of the Animal
The majority of animal subjects in animal experimentation don’t survive. Some die during the experiment while others die after the experiment (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). Essentially, there are research protocols governing how human experiments are done. Despite following these protocols, animals are still killed in laboratories. This leads to a dilemma of whether humans should help to conserve or to end lives. It brings the debate of whether animal lives deserve respect. Essentially, life is essential to both humans and animals. Humans have an obligation of protecting the lives of their fellow humankind as well as that of animals. This is what will increase society’s welfare. Certainly, human life cannot be enjoyable without animals. Animals play an integral role in the ecosystem. Unfortunately, animals don’t have absolute control of their lives (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). Instead, humans do. It is an ethical choice whether to end a life or present it. Ethically, given the importance of life, humans should choose to preserve animal lives over ending it. Animal testing goes against this. The experimenters end animal lives prematurely. The number of animals that have died during experiments is countless. There are no existing accurate statistics on animals that have died in the laboratories doing testing (Cheluvappa et al., 2017).
Although the scientists do their best to help the human continue living, these animals die because of the natural reactions between animal’s body reactions to the experiments (Akhtar, 2015). So, it is not the experimenters that are cruel but the testing. Unmans are caught in a dilemma that they are supposed to put the same value they have for the human lives on the animals. To this end, just as humans can save children from drawing, they should save animals from drawing. Doing so demonstrates respect for human life.
Availability of Alternatives
Animals are not the only things that can be used in scientific experimentation. There exist many alternatives. Scientists can use organic models as substitutes to advance scientific studies. Using their understanding of human anatomy and physiology, scientists can develop alternatives to use in laboratory testing (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). They can develop objects that have similar attributes as human tissues and cells. Doing this will save many animals from suffering and untimely deaths. The concept of alternatives is broad. It can be practiced in many ways. The first way is reduction. This is where the number of animals that are used in an experiment is reduced. Moreover, the experimental techniques used are significantly improved. The data analysis techniques are also improved. For reduction to be successful, experimenters must widely share the information they have relating to animal testing (Rachels & Rachels, 2019).
Secondly, alternatives can be achieved through refinement. This implies providing better living conditions for the animals, better medical care as well as methods that are less invasive. Thirdly, alternatives are achieved through replacement. This entails the use of computer models in scientific experiments. The essence of alternatives is minimizing animal suffering. Since the computer models are non-living, they can efficiently be used to advance human civilization (Akhtar, 2015). The dilemma in animal testing is that experimenters continue using animals in their experimenters despite several alternatives being available.
Moral Status
One of the greatest dilemmas concerning animal testing is the moral status of animals. People’s opinions on whether animals have moral status vary intensely (Doke & Dhawale, 2015). The pro-animal rights base their argument of morality on life. They argue that since animals are living beings, they should be treated with the same respect as humans. In this regard, they argue that animals belong to the same moral community as non-humans (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). With regard to the moral status of animals, the pro-animal rights argue that it is morally wrong to use animals to further human knowledge.
When the moral status of animals is respected, animals would be allowed to live their full life. More so, they would be allowed to live a is a life free of suffering. Undoubtedly, animal experimentation does the opposite. It endangers human lives. On the contrary side, the anti-animal rights argue that animals are not members of the moral community (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). They base their arguments on the cognitive functioning of animals. Since animals do not think and sense equally as humans, they argue that they don’t have moral values. The debate on the moral values of animals gave been influential.
Conclusion
The use of animals in biomedical research has continued over the years. Indeed, it has increased more. At the same time, animal rights activism has continued developing. Certainly, activism will not resolve the dilemma in this topic. Animal testing can end upon the realization that animals have moral values and they belong to the same moral community as humans. Otherwise, as far as animals continue being treated as less being, they will continually be used in scientific experimentation. Essentially, the purpose of scientific research is to advance human civilizations. New products and medicines are made every day when animal testing is done. Naturally, humans are curious. Their curiosity will only be satisfied through research. Animal testing helps them to accomplish this. In this regard, animal testing is likely to continue being done in the future. Nonetheless, the experimenters should do the much they can to reduce distress and suffering in these animals. If this happens, the dilemma surrounding animal testing will be half-overcome.
Archived Solution
You have full access to this solution. To save a copy with all formatting and attachments, use the button below.
For ready-to-submit work, please order a fresh solution below.
