Rogerian Argument on Animal Testing

Religion.Animal.Rights

Rogerian Argument Animal Testing: Collaboration and Compromise

**please note, writer does not have a copy of the full text used so cited per the information available by text. Bibliography may require modification based on client's knowledge and material used. Thank you!

The purpose of this paper is to help people understand how important it is to recognize animal rights, and what can be done to minimize the impact of testing on animals so their safety is always a top priority among researchers. Many people with religious ideals often use animals in ways animal rights activists may consider cruel. This paper will help those with different opinions on this subject understand the other's side to reduce conflict.

Arguments

Many opponents of animal testing proclaim testing is wrong morally and ethically, especially pertaining to specific Christian or other religious idealisms. Regan (1938) argues the use of animals for science, "sport," and hunting without cause or for use by researchers to test vanity products is morally and ethically wrong. From a moral perspective, when one uses animals for such purposes they disregard the rights of animals as eloquently presented by Regan. These practices

Opponents argue that moral reasoning is not necessarily enough to justify one's opinion. In essence, this means one cannot suggest the use of animals for testing and other ventures is wrong based strictly on moral principle. Critics supporting the use of animals suggest the minority prefers animals not be used for experiments or to test vanity products. Those against the use of animal rights also argue the use of animals can only be justified if there is truth evident in the presenter's arguments about why animals should not be used.

It is important however, to recognize that truth does exist in the argument against the use of animals. For example, critics suggest the use of animals is ok because animals do not have feeling. However, there is ample evidence, especially among primate species like gorillas and monkeys, that animals do demonstrate feeling, emotion and behaviors similar to those of humans. Just because one doesn't understand the language of animals doesn't mean the animals' rights are not being violated. Taking a baby orangutan from his or her mother to conduct experiments that may result in rashes, discomfort or death may result in aggressive behavior on the part of the mother orangutan, suggesting a moral and ethical violation of trust has occurred, something that has been proven true, at least for certain species.

Early experiments on mice suggest even animals with small brains like mice can learn and become conditioned to react to certain stimuli. Think of Pavlov's extensive experiments on dogs, and how he could manipulate dogs to salivate at the ring of a bell. All of this suggests there is truth in the argument that animal testing is wrong because it violates the rights of a species that is intelligent, even if that intelligence is different than the intelligence mankind has among its own species.

When considering the subject of animal rights, proponents of the use of animals for science, vanity or sport must ask if the injustice occurring in animals is "absolute" according to Regan. That means it must be absolutely true of each condition considered. Thus, if one were to state that it is morally wrong meaning it is always wrong to use orangutans for scientific experiments using chemicals, then the critics of such cases would have a strong argument supporting their position. While there is evidence that some chemical toxins or other tests may harm the animals tested, there is not necessarily absolute truth in this argument. Some animals for example, may endure testing for vanity products. The animal may suffer no ill effect. In this case those supporting testing might proclaim there is no evidence suggesting the animal always suffers ill-effects, therefore testing is not always wrong.

This methodology however is flawed. Proponents of animal testing fail to consider the number of animals that experience reduced life span or reduced quality of life resulting in the confined environment in which they must live while testing. Further, proponents of testing fail to identify what types of tests are safe and which are not. The very fact that animals must be used to test something suggests that some danger is always imminent, thus the life or quality of life of animals tested is always at risk. It does not matter whether that risk is small or very large. All risk is worthy of consideration and notice.

Unfortunately those whose religious practices forbid the use of animals as experimental tools often go to extreme measures to prove their vantage is correct. They consistently rely on moral and ethically clauses that may not be universally accepted. One way to get around this is through a process of communication and collaboration, where all parties agree to meet and come to an acceptable resolution satisfying the needs of both parties.

With respect to animal rights there is a middle ground that can be acceptable to both opponents and proponents of animal testing. This middle ground is not extreme; rather, it would force animal testing companies to engage in "humane reform" (Regan, 688). This type of reform is one that allows each party to identify what practices are safe and generally well tolerated and which practices must be abolished due to their nature.

Many persons strongly oppose the use of animals for scientific, sport, vanity and other forms of testing. On the other hand, many proponents insist the use of animals is necessary to promote better quality of life outcomes for human beings, especially humans that benefit from experiments that lead to safer medical products and even safer cosmetic products. Because each party has equal ground, they can build trust by meeting to arbitrate their differences before an objective third party. This could lead to open communication and discussion.