The use of animal research studies has posed an ethical dilemma for the medical community. As the movement of for animal rights entered mainstream awareness, increased scrutiny was placed on medical research studies involving live animals. The debate has sparked strong arguments from both supporters and abolitionists. Peter Singer, often credited as the pioneer of animal rights, delivers a profound document in favor of equality of animals. Carl Cohen provided a retort during the necessity of animal research for scientific advancement. However, with all of the technological advances of the 21st century, one must question if an antiquated method has overstayed its welcome in modern society.
It’s easy to understand how questions concerning the validity of animal experimentation arose. Some may say that humans have the right to use animals for research simply because the human species is more evolved. While some, on the other hand, may question the moral obligation of humans and distinguish the difference because what humans can do, and what they should do. As science and technology continue to advance, considerations for the ethical treatment of these animals needs to be considered. The research in question should be thoroughly examined for justification of using non-human animals, and if animal testing is necessary, their care and wellbeing should be the main concern. And while Cohen argues that only the ability to make claims paves the way for rights, the bottom line is that dispite intellectual capacity, animals are capable of feeling pain.
In his controversial piece, Singer demands equal consideration for animals in order to prevent the unnecessary suffering of any sentient being. Singer questions the basis of equality and whether human interests should always take precedence over the interests of other nonhuman animals. Single believes equality for all human beings is not based on a being’s moral capacity or intellectual...