Need an argumentative essay on Ethical Issues Involved in Animal Testing. Needs to be 4 pages. Please no plagiarism.Download file to see previous pages 3). Another argument that contests animal testin

Need an argumentative essay on Ethical Issues Involved in Animal Testing. Needs to be 4 pages. Please no plagiarism.

3). Another argument that contests animal testing is the moral status animals. It was noted that animals’ capacity to feel pleasure or pain equate them to humans in terms of moral status. The arguments on the moral status of animals were discussed extensively in Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. One argument was contended by Kant in his Lectures on Ethics, highlighed as follows: “we have indirect duties to animals, duties that are not toward them, but in regard to them insofar as our treatment of them can affect our duties to persons” (Kant, 1997, p. 240). Animal Testing is Ethical It has been revealed that the argument for or against animal testing actually stemmed from the views of philosophers (Mukerjee, 1997). As disclosed, Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher and a writer of Animal Liberation, allegedly supported the utilitarian theory which espoused that “in all decisions the total amount of good that results—human and animal—should be weighed against the suffering—human and animal—caused in the process. Not that to him the interests of humans and animals have equal weight: life is of far greater value to a human than, for example, to a creature with no self-awareness” (Mukerjee, 1997, p. 87). Apparently, the philosophy of utilitarianism was identified with John Stuart Mill, who espoused that “in any given situation the right action would be the action that tended to minimize the suffering and pain, and maximize the pleasure and happiness, of all interested parties. He further thought that the suffering, pain, pleasure and happiness of animals should be included in this calculus” (Branham, 2005,...

It has been revealed that the argument for or against animal testing actually stemmed from the views of philosophers (Mukerjee, 1997). As disclosed, Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher and a writer of Animal Liberation, allegedly supported the utilitarian theory which espoused that “in all decisions the total amount of good that results—human and animal—should be weighed against the suffering—human and animal—caused in the process. Not that to him the interests of humans and animals have equal weight: life is of far greater value to a human than, for example, to a creature with no self-awareness” (Mukerjee, 1997, p. 87). Apparently, the philosophy of utilitarianism was identified with John Stuart Mill, who espoused that “in any given situation the right action would be the action that tended to minimize the suffering and pain, and maximize the pleasure and happiness, of all interested parties.&nbsp. He further thought that the suffering, pain, pleasure and happiness of animals should be included in this calculus” (Branham, 2005, par. 2).&nbsp.To refute Regan’s assertions that animals have rights, philosophers and researchers, such as Carl Cohen.&nbsp. The Moral Significance of Animals' Moral Claims, 2010, par. 12). This assertion was likewise supported by Festing and Wilkinson that “the use of animals in research can be ethically and morally justified. The benefits of animal research have been enormous and it would have severe consequences for public health and medical research if it were abandoned” (Festing &amp. Wilkinson, 2007, p. 1).