Divinely Granted Dominion
Commonly known as biblical authority, Divinely Granted Dominion justifies the use of animal as humans wish, so long as humans are not careless or malevolent [Bioethics]. Some push the meaning further, suggesting there are no constraints on the use of animals. However, the major view is that it falls short of domination and is closer to stewardship.
The Thomas / Kantian Position
They both argued that humans should not abuse animals because the animal abusers might be more likely to abuse other humans [Bioethics]. They saw no inherent value in the animals.
However, this theory has been proven wrong through research. It is possible for the tendency to abuse humans to lower as a result of opportunities to abuse an animal [Bioethics].
Utilitarianism
The Utilitarianism theory centers on an animal's ability to experience suffering [Bioethics]. Because an animal can experience pain and pleasure, it means it is sentient. Thus it is entitled to have its pain and pleasure weighed against the similar pain and suffering of other sentient animal, including humans. This is not saying that a rat and human are to be treated equally, but the pain and pleasure of all sentient parties involved should be considered.
The Utilitarianism theory is so common that both sides use it to make their points [Bioethics]. The supporters of animal research argue that the benefits to humans outweigh the harm to the animals. The opponents argue that the suffering of animals outweigh the benefit to humans. The extent of human benefit and animal suffering are in question.
Animal supporters suggest that the benefits of animal research are far too limited and put an animal's interest in not experiencing pain on almost the same level of a human. The scientific side maintains that animal suffering is minimal or even nonexistent, while the benefit claims are maximized.
This approach is almost impossible to calculate. To come up with solid measurements and rational balancing of good versus harm is an inexact science. How exactly does the suffering of a rat balance in terms of human benefit?
Reverence for Life
Under this ideal of thought all life, whether sentient or not, has a 'will to live' [Bioethics]. To cherish and maintain all forms of life is inherently good. However, oddly enough animal research is not opposed in situations, which it is necessary or unavoidable [Bioethics]. This theory of thought is usually the common phrase of animal activists.
Animal Rights
The concept of animal rights has been around for centuries [Bioethics]. This concept is usually the central issue in the arguments between opponents and proponents of animal research. However, the term has been flung around so much that often it seems to cloud issues rather than clarify them.
The term is used in three different contexts>
A. "Common Sense" - About 80% of the general public believes animals have rights, but 85% of that same public believes humans have to right to kill and eat the same animals [Bioethics]. Whatever rights these people seem to think animals have, it does not include the right to life.
B. "Political Views" - In the western world political ideals get put with 'rights' language very quickly. Thus, we have civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc. Therefore, in the political arena, 'rights' give an ideal more political momentum [Bioethics]. It is only natural for the animal movement to attach 'rights' to itself so that the power of 'rights' language can be utilized.
C. " Philosophical Arguments" - As far as philosophy is concerned, a right cannot be overridden by the claim of human utility [Bioethics]. The only way to override a right claim is to counter with another. These arguments consist usually of radical challenges to the current use of animals solely as a mean to a human end. However, not all arguments need to be so radical.
The argument that asserts that humans cannot use animals simply as a means to a human end, is a very strong argument against animal research [Bioethics]. The weaker, but plausible 'Animal Rights' stance that animals have the right not to be caused any suffering is strong against animal research [Bioethics]. Both positions carry a 'right' with them and cannot be ignored simply out of convenience. Some believe that animals that have beliefs and desires are inherently worth enough so that they should not be killed or used as a means for a human end. Most adult mammals are put into this category along with birds and other vertebrates [Bioethics].
The Alternative
Almost every argument on the ethics behind animal research deals with a single characteristic of life. A possession of beliefs and desires, or life itself, or some other concept is far too simple in a world that is becoming more and more complex [Bioethics]. All things must be considered and the obligation humans have towards animals must begin at an established baseline of moral consideration which humans cannot sink below. On top of this, layers of consideration can be built.
Example> A person will treat everyone, even strangers, with a basic set of consideration. A person will treat his or her family with an even greater consideration. [Bioethics]
This Darwinian approach puts obligations in terms of evolutionary paths. Thus, a chimpanzee would receive more consideration, when being researched on, than a frog would.
Four simple guidelines to animal research [Bioethics]>
[i] reduce the suffering of animals as much as possible
[ii] reduce the number of animals used during a research project.
[iii] Ensure that the experiments and research are carefully planned so that it is likely to achieve its goal.
[iv] Ensure that the personnel conducting the study is properly trained so that animal suffering is minimal.
