Animal Experimentation: An Ethical Discourse on Animal Welfare

This essay provides a comprehensive ethical discourse on animal experimentation, also known as animal testing or in vivo testing, a practice prevalent in various scientific disciplines. The essay begins by defining the practice and highlighting the staggering number of animals used annually. It then delves into the core of the debate, exploring the arguments of animal rights activists who condemn the practice as a violation of animal rights and welfare, while also presenting the counterarguments of those who defend animal experimentation, primarily based on the benefits to mankind. The essay analyzes the ethical principle of justice, emphasizing the importance of considering animal welfare as sentient beings, differing from the utilitarian perspectives of scholars like Peter Singer. It then examines the arguments for and against the moral status of animals, exploring the views of philosophers such as Peter Singer, Christine Korsgaard, and Jeff Sebo. The essay concludes that animals possess moral status, and therefore, animal experimentation, which infringes on their rights and autonomy, should be reconsidered in light of this moral status. The essay also includes an annotated bibliography of key works on animal rights and welfare by prominent thinkers such as Peter Singer, Christine Korsgaard, and Jeff Sebo.

Running head: ANIMAL EXPERIMENT: AN ETHICAL DISCOURSE ON ANIMAL
WELFARE
Animal Experiment: An Ethical Discourse on Animal Welfare
Student’s name
University
Author’s note

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT: AN ETHICAL DISCOURSE ON ANIMAL WELFARE
Topic Summary
Animal experiment, also known as animal testing or in vivo testing, refers to the use of
non-human animals in experiments of various disciplines, such as biological sciences,
pharmaceutical, toxicology, defence research, cosmetic testing and also in some of the
behavioural studies. More particularly, the experiments that seek to control the variables that
affect the biological systems and behaviours under a scientific study uses animals as their testing
samples. It is estimated that each year, more than 100 million animals, ranging from fish to non-
human primates, are used for scientific research. An estimate indicates that mice, rats,
amphibians, reptiles and fish together account for the 85% of the total number of research
animals (Doke et al. 224).
The staggering figures and evidences suggest that animal experiment is a widely
prevalent practice all over the world. In every country, under government and independent
laboratories, huge number of animals are regularly used to conduct scientific researches, which is
purportedly carried out for the benefit of science and the overall human population. However,
there has been a long standing debate regarding the use of animals for science experiments.
Animal rights activists and a section of moral philosophers strongly condemn the practice of
animal testing, arguing that it essentially a form of cruelty and therefore violates the rights of the
animals. However, the defenders of the animal experiment argue that animals, as devoid of
rationality, cannot be regarded as morally equal to human beings. Hence, there can be no
question of morality in the context of animal testing. Moreover, they claim that the benefit that is
yielded by animal testing for the mankind essentially make up for the harm caused to those
animals (Garner 221).

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT: AN ETHICAL DISCOURSE ON ANIMAL WELFARE
The opponents’ claim in this regard, is majorly based on the ethical principle of justice.
Animal welfare, as an ethical principle, can be defined as an ideal theory of justice if they are
regarded as sentient beings similar to human beings (Cao and White 52). On that ground, the
interest and wellbeing of animals should to taken into consideration, especially under human care
and ownership, or else it signifies unjust and unfair treatment to animals. This form of animal
welfare technically differs from the utilitarian principle of notable scholar of Bioethics and
Princeton Professor Peter Singer, who suggest that it is a human obligation to attend to the
interest of the animals, as they are similar to human beings. The similarity, however, does not lie
in the cognitive ability or rationality, rather it is embedded in their capacity to pain and suffer,
and the violation of animal interests and rights eventually lead up to disrupt the moral good or
happiness in the part of the animals (Kuhse, Schüklenk, and Singer 231)
In the light of the ethical discourse, it can be pointed out that the major altercation in the
context of animal experiment lies in determining the moral status of the animals. While one
section of thinkers refuse to accept as morally considerable beings who could be wronged, the
other argues in favour of essential moral considerable beings, as they claim there is no justifiable
way to exclude animals from moral consideration. To this end, the present research seeks to
examine the arguments in favour of the moral status of animals, to determine whether animal
testing could be morally justifiable.
Research Map
The study will undertake a brief survey of scholarly literature to extract the major points
in favour of the moral status of animals. Thereby, analysing the arguments it will determine

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT: AN ETHICAL DISCOURSE ON ANIMAL WELFARE
whether animals can be regarded having moral status. Finally, outlining the focus of the viable
arguments, it will try to determine whether animal experiment is morally justifiable.
Annotated Bibliography
Animal liberation (Peter Singer)
Peter Singer, in his pioneering work on animal rights and welfare, has coined the term
‘Animal Liberation’ following the shadows of significant human rights movement such as
women liberation, black liberation, gay liberation etc. The rationale underlying this description
indicates the discriminatory approach embedded in the treatments of animals, which essentially
refuse to acknowledge their moral status. In the arguments that follows, Singer claim that despite
the apparent dissimilarity between human beings and animals, there is a range of similarity
between the two class in terms of suffering or lack of happiness, which confirms that animals
have their own interests like human beings and that should, by all means, be protected and
respected. The notion of fundamental interest that elevates the animals to equal consideration,
making it a universal feature. And this universality leads to utilitarianism, on the strength of
which Singer argues that one’s happiness cannot be considered more important than the others.
In this regard, he emphasizes the notion of speciesism, which refers to a unique human-centric
prejudice that resembles racism to some extent. Like racism, where there is a conflict between
the interests of two classes, the dominant class tends to protect their own interest over the
minority. Simialrly, human beings favours their own interest violating that of the animals,
without any moral justification. Thus, Singer’s utilitarian approach confers the animal moral
status on the grounds of suffering or enjoyment of happiness.

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT: AN ETHICAL DISCOURSE ON ANIMAL WELFARE
"Kantian ethics, animals, and the Law." (Christine M. Korsgaard)
In this peer-reviewed article, Korsgard approaches the issue of moral status of animals
based on the understanding of legal systems and the notions of Kantian personhood. She states
that the legal systems have bifurcated the world into two categories, namely persons and
property, which essentially treats animals as property. While some animal rights activists argue
in favour of considering animals as persons or sentient beings, their argument is seemingly
pointed against this treatment. Therefore, Korsgaard argues that a third normative category could
be developed to dissociate the animals from property, which could elevate their status. In
Kantian ethics, normative categories are established presupposing rational practices. According
to him, rational practoces and choices presupposes that rational beings are end in themselves and
thus, are considered as the only contender of moral status. He also maintain that the rational use
of earth’s resources presupposes that human beings have fundamental rights. Opposing Kant.
Korsgaard argues that rational choice also presupposes that any being that is subject to being
harmed, for whom things can be good or bad, must also be regarded as an end in themselves.
Moreover, for any being who is dependent on earth’s resources for their sustenance has rights
over them. Therefore, Korsgaard argues that although animals do not engage in rational
practices, human beings should consider them as the subject of moral status by their own rational
practice.
Agency and Moral Status (Sebo)
In this article, the author investigates the traditional conception of agency as the basis of
moral status. He points out that as per the traditional concept, most human beings are agents,

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT: AN ETHICAL DISCOURSE ON ANIMAL WELFARE
while most of the animals are not. However, he undertakes an elaborate exploration of
contemporary psychological and philosophical discourses and investigates the nature of agency
to establish that animals also have agency, to affirm the moral status of animals similar to human
beings. He argues that to understand the agency of animals, we must develop more than one
concept of agency. In this regard, he distinguishes propositional and perceptual agency, and
further argues that animals essentially have perceptual agency whereas most of the human beings
possess both forms of agency. Therefore, he argues that since both human beings and animals
exercise same kind of agency, it is not justifiable to ascribe moral status to one class, denying the
other. Hence, according to Sebo, animals, though not similar to human beings, must be given
some kind of moral status.
Conclusion
Exploring the literatures, it can be concluded that animals indeed possess moral status.’
While thinkers like Singer want to equate the nature of moral status in human beings and
animals, philosophers such as Sebo consider the human supremacy but accept some kind of
moral status for them. Also, according to Korsgaard, the treatment to animals should not
necessarily be confined as human properties. The can also be considered as persons on the merit
of being ends in themselves and have the rights on the natural resources as well. Therefore, the
defenders of animal experiment, who claim the practice cannot be considered as unethical are not
entirely right in their claims. And therefore, animal experiment, essentially a practive that
violates the rights and autonomy of the animals should be reconsidered on the grounds of the
moral status of the animals.

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT: AN ETHICAL DISCOURSE ON ANIMAL WELFARE
References
Cao, Deborah, and Steven White, eds. Animal Law and Welfare-International Perspectives. Vol.
53. Springer, 2016.
Doke, Sonali K., and Shashikant C. Dhawale. "Alternatives to animal testing: A review." Saudi
Pharmaceutical Journal 23.3 (2015): 223-229.
Garner, Robert, ed. Animal rights: The changing debate. Springer, 2016.
Korsgaard, Christine M. "Kantian ethics, animals, and the Law." Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
33.4 (2013): 629-648.
Kuhse, Helga, Udo Schüklenk, and Peter Singer, eds. Bioethics: an anthology. John Wiley &
Sons, 2015.
Sebo, Jeff. "Agency and moral status." Journal of Moral Philosophy 14.1 (2017): 1-22.
Singer, Peter. Animal liberation: The definitive classic of the animal movement. Open Road
Media, 2015.

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT: AN ETHICAL DISCOURSE ON ANIMAL WELFARE