Need help editing the essay to fit the criteria
Surname 1 Name Institutional Affiliations Why animals should not be used for biomedical research Since the 1970s, the use of animals in scientific studies has been a sensitive issue. Some people say that using animals for scientific progress is important, but others argue it is immoral and unnecessary. In this essay, I argue that animals should not be used for biomedical research. I draw upon the works of Peter Singer and Tom Regan to support my claim. Explication Peter Singer, a well -known psychologist, said that animals can feel pain just like people. Singer says in his book Animal Liberation, " The c apacity for suffering and enjoyment is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in a meaningful way " ( Singer, p. 3 7). This means that animals should be taken into account when making ch oices that affect them. So, using animals in scientific study is morally wrong, which causes them pain and suffering. Over the years, more and more people have come to agree with Peter Singer's claim that animals have the same ability to feel pain as human s and therefore have a moral position that should be taken into account when making decisions that affect them. Many groups that care about animals have been pushing for changes to the law to improve farm animals' lives, and they have made a lot of progres s. The first signs of change in the US were t he bans on crates for pregnant sows in Florida and veal crates in Arizona, respectively (Singer, p.15) . Most people were in favor of these bans, which sent a message to the makers. The biggest US producers of ve al said they would stop using veal boxes in two to three Surname 2 years, and the biggest US and Canadian producers of pigs said they would stop using sow crates over the next ten years. Also, big food chains like Burger King, Hardee's, and Carl's Jr. have started g etting pork and eggs from farmers who don't use sow boxes and battery cages (Singer, p.16) . A lot of well - known cooks, food stores, and restaurants in the US are also moving away from the worst way’s animals are kept. The most important win happened on Nov ember 4, 2008, when Californians voted 63 -37 in favor of a poll proposal that gave all farm animals in the stateroom to stretch their legs and turn around without hitting other animals or the sides of their cages (Singer p. 16) . In California, veal, sow bo xes, and the normal battery cage were made illegal in 2015. This gave 19 million hens more space to move around and flap their wings. All of these changes prove what animal rights activists have been saying for a long time. Singer says that the view he def ends in his book goes much further than these important improvements to the lives of farm animals. He wants us to change how we think about animals more deeply. In 2008, an important vote by a committee of the Spanish government said that an animal could b e given the legal standing of a person with rights (Singer p. 17) . This was the first sign that this could happen. The vote was a show of support for the Great Ape Project, an organization that wants our closest animal cousins, like chimps, bonobos, orangu tans, and gorillas, to have basic rights like the right to live, the right to be free and the right to be safe from harm. Peter Singer's also claim s that animals have moral worth and shouldn't be used in the biological study is important for more than just the care of animals. It also raises important moral questions about how animals are used for food, pleasure, and other things (Singer, p. 49) . If animals have moral worth, we have a responsibility to look out for their best interests and avoid hurting them when we don't have to. This task applies to all animals, not just those used in Surname 3 scientific study. Typically, Singer's ideas have changed how many people think about animals, which has led to big changes in laws and policies about animal care. There is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that animals get the respect and care they deserve. We must all keep pushing for change and speaking out for a more fair and kind world for all animals. Similarly, p hilosopher and animal rights campaigner Tom Regan says that animals have value in and of themselves and should be treated with care. In his book The Case for Animal Rights, Regan claims that , " all hav e inherent value, all possess it equally, and all have an equal right to be treated with respect, to be treated in ways that do not reduce them to the status of things, as if they existed as resources for others " (Regan, p. 7). Regan says that animals are not just things that people can use but that they are also people with their own wants and needs. So, using animals in scientific study is an abuse of their rights and a violation of what they are worth on their own. Regan also argues that t he "cruelty -kindness view" which suggest that people have a straight duty to be kind to animals and not be cruel to them (Regan, p.5) . Regan's point of view is the opposite of this. But Regan thought that this view didn't give a good theory for animal ethics because bei ng kind or cruel doesn't mean that something is morally right or wrong. Some people think the utilitarian view, which says that all humans, including animals, should be as happy as possible and suffer as little as possible, is a better ethical basis for an imal rights. But Regan also criticized the practical view, saying that it doesn't take into account how valuable each animal is on its own. For the utilitarian, what's important is that a person's needs are met, not the person themselves. In other words, a world where an animal's needs are met is better than one where they aren't, but the animal itself isn't valuable in and of itself. Instead, the value of their happiness is good, while the value of their anger is bad (Regan, p. 5.) . Surname 4 Regan thought this view didn't recognize that animals are people with worth on their own, regardless of how useful they are to humans. So, it is ethically wrong and against the rights of animals to use them in scientific study or for any other reason that hurts their natural val ue. People have also said that Regan's point of view is too radical and doesn't make sense (Regan, p.3) . Some people say that it is impossible to never use animals for human reasons, like in scientific studies or farming. But Regan said that the end goal s hould be to use animals as little as possible and give them the same rights and safeguards as people. Even though Regan's work has been criticized, it has greatly affected the animal rights movement. His points have caused many people to rethink their feel ings about animals and fight for their rights. In the past few years, people have become more aware of the need to lessen animal pain and improve their care.Because of this, there are now more rules about how animals can be used in study and farming, and people are eating more plant -based foods. Regan's work still affects animal ethics talks, which is an important addition to the field. Argumentation One reason given for why it's important to use animals in a biological study is that it helps science move forward. But this argument is wrong because there are other ways to study biology that are just as good as using animals, which can be used to argue against the idea that it's important to use animals. Some of these methods are in vitro tests, computer mod els, and tissue engineering. Many experts have used these methods successfully. As Peter Singer notes, "No doubt there have been some advances in knowledge which would not have been attained as easily without using animals" (Singer, p. 147). But Singer's point doesn't change the fact that there are better and more humane ways to test on animals than using them. Also, research on animals has become controversial because people care more about animal health, as shown by Surname 5 the growth of the animal prot ection movement. The movement has changed people's ideas about animal care and has also done a great job of fighting agriculture, which has forced companies to improve conditions for animals. The fact that vegetarianism and veganism are becoming more popul ar is also a big step forward in making animals' lives better. Animal farming also has a significant effect on the environment, making greenhouse gas pollution and other environmental problems worse (Singer, p. 9) . Because of this, a lot of people who care about the environment are choosing to become vegetarians, vegans, or "flexitarians" (Singer, p. 9). Because people want plant -based goods, people have come up with options that look like meat and even made meat, which doesn't require killing animals. In a ddition to the fact that there are other ways to do study, there are also ethical issues about using animals. Many people think it's wrong to put animals through painful and possibly dangerous tests when it's not necessary. Animals are conscious beings who can feel pain and sorrow, so we should treat them with care and kindness. Also, it's important to think about how accurate and reliable animal research is. Animals are not perfect representations of how humans work, so the results of studies done on them may not always be true for people. This can cause people to draw wrong or even dangerous conclusions from the study. Another reason given for why animals should be used in scientific study is that animals can't feel feelings or pain like people can. This i s evident where Regan argues that “they must avoid the two defects just noted: that is, both the view that animals don't feel anything as well as the idea that only human pain can be morally relevant” Regan, p.3). But this claim is also wrong because ther e is no solid proof to back it up. Studies have shown that animals can feel a wide range of feelings, such as pain, fear, and happiness. Since it's not true that animals don't feel pain or feelings like people do, it's not okay to use them in scientific st udies. Also, it's important to consider how using Surname 6 animals in study affects ethics. Animals are living things with feelings and needs and deserve to be treated with respect and kindness. When animals are used for study, they often have to go through painful and sometimes deadly treatments, which can cause them a lot of pain. This brings up important ethical questions about whether the benefits of study on animals are worth the pain and suffering they have to go through. It is also important to think about th e moral effects of putting people's needs ahead of those of other species, especially when there are other ways to do things that don't involve testing on animals. In the end, the use of animals in biological research must be judged based on both how well it works scientifically and how it affects people's morals. Conclusion In conclusion, the use of animals for biomedical research is unethical and unnecessary. Animals have the same capacity to suffer as humans and should be treated with respect and conside ration for their inherent value. Furthermore, there are alternative methods of testing that can be used instead of animals. Therefore, it is time to end the use of animals in biomedical research and move towards more humane and effective methods. Surname 7 Works Cited Singer, Peter. "Animal liberation or animal rights?." Animal Rights . Routledge, 2017. 165 -176. Regan, Tom. "The case for animal rights." Animal rights . Routledge, 2017. 17 -30.
