Homework Writing Help on Using Animals for Food and Biomedical Research

Using Animals for Food and Biomedical Research

 People connect with animals in various ways; they eat them as food, wear their skin as clothes, and own them as pets. People experiment with animals for testing drugs and consumer products. Little thought has been given as to the number of animals that are used for the purpose of research and food or what the animals might be experiencing when they are used for these two purposes. Despite the fact that animals do not have rational abilities that can be compared with that of human beings, they have mental capabilities and this puts them in a position to feel pain and anxiety as a result of how people treat them. I feel that animals should not be used as food or even in research; this is because we subject them to pain and suffering. Animals have their own rights that should be used to protect them from human beings.

          One justification for using animals for food and experiments is that animals do not feel pain. However, far from this belief, it is true that every animal is in a position to feel pain. Different animals have different degrees of neurological complexity; they may range from the more primitive ones, for example, worms to the more sophisticated ones like the chimpanzee (Singer 13). How can we get to know what is in the minds of these animals to know that they have the capability of feeling pain? One way of explaining this is through an occurrence that is easy to relate; the use of analogy.

         When something hard like a rock hit your friend’s foot, it is hard to directly access his/her thought process and know if he/she is feeling pain. When a rock falls on animals, it will be hard to access their thought and determine if they are feeling pain. In this sense, the friend and the animal will be seen as biological robots that are programmed to respond to a particular stimulus, for example, shouting. This is commonly referred to as the problem of the other mind (Singer 23). Despite the fact that the barrier between peoples’ mind and others people’s mind is permanent, a partial solution can be found to deal with the challenge. If there are similarities between a person and his/her friend, then it is justified to infer that they have the same mental experiences. When rocks fall on a friend’s foot, he/she experiences pain. This means that a friend has a physical and behavior feature that is similar to the person, and therefore, when rocks hit your friend’s foot, he /she experiences pain consciously.

All people come from similar species and same physiologies. Therefore, a person’s mental experiences with that of a friend are same. Despite the fact that there are various differences between animals and people, the same solution for analogy can still apply when it comes to animals. Therefore, it can be concluded that animals feel the same pain as human beings and for this reason, it will not be morally right to use them as food or even in research. Animals are subjected to the same pain people feel when they respond to certain stimulus.

Using animal’s species for food and research defies morality. Animals that are raised for the purpose of food and research are treated as means to the human end and not as an end in themselves; this violates the rights of the animals. Though the animals raised for food may be raised in a humane way, killing the animals violate their basic interests (Singer 43). The rights’ arguments contend that the use of animals for food or research treats animals as a means for human gratification

Opposing arguments contend that only animals are suitable for research, and that it is a serious error to suppose that humans can live without using animals as food. The objections explain that even if there are alternatives, there is no method or approach that can fully replace the use of animals as food or in research. This is because they provide elements that cannot be substituted by anything else. Prohibiting animal utilization during research blocks valuable elements in replacements of animal subjects with human subjects.

Human beings have an obligation towards animals. It is essential to weigh all the significant benefits of using animals for the purpose of food and research. People should not assume the moral equality of the animate species. This objection falls short of explaining why the animals should be used for food and research. It promotes human gratification at the expense of animal suffering. From the first premise, it is true that animals experience pain just like human and using them as food or in research would be against their will, as they will be subjected to torture at times.

Use of animals in research and as food is wrong. Although it may be justified by saying that animals do not feel pain, the analogical reasoning proves otherwise. Many animals are made with almost similar physiological characteristics. They can feel pain just like humans. Animals have rights and using them as food or in research may undermine these rights. Though a number of objections stand to counter the argument that animals should not be used as food or in research, the objections do not have a solid reason as to why people should use animals in research and as food. Therefore, they serve to promote human gratification at the expense of animal suffering.

Work Cited

Singer, Peter. In defense of animals. New York: Wiley Blackwell, 2005.