Cognitive Studies- Individual Report: 35% Should we use animals for experimental purposes within the Cognitive Sciences? Within the cognitive sciences and within the article Opposing Views on Animal Experimentation; Do Animals have Rights? Written by Tom L Beauchamp, the most frequently asked and most debated question throughout it is should we subject animals for experimental purposes to help improve our own understanding and knowledge?
There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!
order now
This article argues against other theorists about animal rights and questions if the moral value and these rights of animals is enough to stop humans from subjecting them to harm whilst engaging in experiments. Key elements within this report will discuss an objective approach to the use of these animals, in reference to Tom L Beauchamp’s argument against the use of animals for experimental testing, and acknowledging their rights. Many argue if the information that we are gaining from using animals in experiments is even worth risking the animal’s rights and wellbeing.
Every year animals are cruelly subjected to brutally savage and painful scientific experiments. It is believed from animal activists that in these experiments, animals are given no drugs to ease their pain, and once they are no longer useful for these experiments, they are killed. This is why many people educated on the topic ask where the rights of the animals are? What gives humans the right to decide that these animals are to be tested on? And why not test on humans? Beauchamp’s article suggests that this because of the scientific contrasts between human life and animal life (Beauchamp, 1997, 114).
Humans have ideally created a world where they are the dominant spices, where they rule. Humans believe to have cognitive capacities such as self-consciousness, purposive action, language skills, rationality, and being able to make moral judgements, and important properties such as feeling emotion, that seem to be more self-determing and significant then animals (Beauchamp, 1997, 115). Also known as specie-sim, which is a belief that humans are superior. And this then gives themselves a higher moral standing in the world, in ways animals cannot. Ranking them higher and counting for more (Beauchamp, 1997, 114).
However, Beauchamp suggests and argues that animals as well, have moral standing, and to some degree actually share the same properties of pain and emotion that humans do (Beauchamp, 1997 113). This means that these animals should actually qualify for some of the same protections of morality that humans get when being subjected to the idea of scientific experiments. Beauchamp then explains that there are ‘direct threats’ to this subjective analysis of humans being more superior than animals, because of the moral standing that animals are now recognized to have.
Animals hold some of those certain properties of emotion and pain, and satisfy one or more of those central capacities that humans have. This now suggesting and meaning that animals have a mental life too (the same as Humans), so they are self conscious, purposive, rational and so on (Beauchamp, 1997, 116). And even though they do not communicate via language like humans do, they still communicate through other means, which would rank them up within the so called ‘model of cognitive properties’ that humans are scientifically moralised and ranked by.
Therefore on a cognitivist theory, we should be compelled to change our treatments towards animals. So why animals are still being cruelly used for testing is questionable. From understanding that animals do carry out a reasonable amount of both moral standing and rights and that they also exhibit a diverse range of properties, they should most definitely qualify for moral protections. And us as humans whom follow by this theory, should have some obligations to animals. However, in Beauchamp’s article, he also speaks of a man named Carl Cohen, who is a professor of philosophy within the cognitive sciences.
Beauchamp’s article solely argues against Cohen’s theory. Cohen is against Beauchamp’s supported argument and theory about animals holding those certain properties which relate them closely to humans. Cohen denies that animals have rights, although he does not claim that animals are altogether without standing (Beauchamp, Cohen, 1997, 113). He believes the concept of rights is essentially human. “The Case for the Use of Animals in Research” (Cohen, 1986) is an article that was written by Cohen.
Within his article, Cohen states that having a right, is being able to claim one party of validation that can exercise against another party of validation. And claiming may only occur within a particular community of moral agents that can claim against one another. This meaning that having rights could only be “necessarily human: their possessors are persons” (Beauchamp, Cohen, 1997, 118) holding the ability for moral judgment, and being able to portray moral claims. And because animals do not have these same rights, they then lack these abilities.
Cohen then concludes and quotes “In conducting research on animal subjects, therefore, we do not violate their rights, because they have none to violate” (Beauchamp, Cohen, 1997, 118). Animals while they are alive during testing, are kept in cramped, unsuitable conditions for the entire durations of their lives. Even animals with a higher cognitive status such as pigs, that have a similar cognitive capacity to that of dogs, are reared into small stalls, and suffer a life of high stress and boredom when being used for experiments. However there is nothing stopping this happening as they have fewer rights than that of dogs.
This is an example of creatures being judged on their species rather than their cognitive ability. Again known as specie-sim. This is the same sort of thing that Beauchamp is arguing against, why Humans who share smiliar cognitive abilities are still more suprioer then animals. So when does the theory of higher cognitive capacities and properties affect this moral standing? Even though an animal is not human and may not stand up against scientific theories of morality and rights when it comes to experiments, it does not mean that it does not have feelings shared by Humans.
In an ethical and morally supported community, animals have the right to a comfortable life just as humans do. They cannot speak for themselves and they may need humans to speak for them, but that does not discount the fact that they deserve to be treated fairly. Animals have rights in that they are living creatures capable of feeling pain and discomfort, and should be respected by humans, as demonstrated by Beauchamp throughout his article. Reference List; Tom L. Beauchamp (1997): Opposing Views on Animal Experimentation: Do Animals Have Rights? , Ethics & Behavior, 7:2, 113-121
