Kill (Torture) One, Save a Thousand
The Truth Hurts.
To kill? Or not to Kill? To experiment? Or not to experiment? There is
no question to be asked. The answer is yes. Although Lewis Carroll
provides a compelling argument on vivisection and the idea that such is
"the worship of Self," I absolutely disagree (Carroll 342). Vivisection
and animal experimentation is one of the sole reasons the medical field
has expanded its resources and potential to unlimited reaches over the
last fifty years alone. As said in Carroll's "Vivisection as a Sign of
the Time," I fully agree with the principle that "Pain is indeed an
evil, but so much suffering may be fitly endured to purchase so much
knowledge" (Carroll 341). Of course, I agree that human experimentation
is morally questionable, all pertaining to the purpose and function of
the research at hand. The end justifies the means. If utilizing a human
or animal life during cancer or AIDs research can potentially provide
further knowledge and information regarding a possible solution or cure,
then by all means do so. At the end of the day, the sacrifice of one
life to save the many is justified. With humans, there must be
documented recognition of possible set procedures and possible
consequences to face. If someone understands the necessary precautions
and possible extreme outcomes, including death, then why stop this
effort to learn more about the world of disease, infection, and viruses?
Yes, law suits are always a hassle, but the search for knowledge cannot
be impeded. Only because of human curiosity and determination does the
world hold some of its greatest feats of the century including
controlled electric circuitry, automobiles, lifeline support, etc.
Someone has to do the dirty work for new innovative processes to arise,
and unless humanity is willing to understand the darker consequences for
such, they will plateau in existence, reaching a brick wall of
intelligence and ground-breaking advances in technology and medicine.
With animal vivisection, I understand there is a morally wrong function
in experimenting on living organisms for supposed selfish means. In
reality, are those means selfish? Even using an animal to test and
perfect cosmetic utilities has its reasoning. The purpose of cosmetics
is to increase the physical attractive nature of a woman or man, and why
not? Everyone wants to be noticed, and everyone wants the attention and
physical attraction of others. Animal testing does have its flaws,
especially in the case of certain industries, but as far as medicine
goes, it is a necessary evil. Human curiosity is the key resources and
strongest tool against the threats of the changing world. Evolution,
disease immunity, and new and unknown forces are found everyday, but
animal experimentation is one of the key components to fighting off all
of the above. My picture explains it all. It's a matter of survival.
Humans are intelligent, complicated creatures, but with that comes
greats responsibility, and most importantly, a responsibility to the
world to better society and help move society forward in whichever way
possible.
Don't hurt the cute, little rat. It's just a girl's life on the line.
My
point is further justified in Carroll's "Some Popular Fallacies About
Vivisection" because "man is infinitely more important than the lower
animals, so that the infliction of animal suffering, however great, is
justifiable if it prevent human suffering, however small" (Carroll 334).
Only through sacrifice and loss do we see truth and worth. I agree it
is awful that animals must die and pain at the hand's of man, but the
research and possible technological advancements far outweigh the
consequences. The question comes into terms with the ambiguity of human
suffering. In what regard does human suffering justify animal research?
People have strong feelings against this research because of the
outlandish industries which utilize animals for research, including
cloning, cosmetics, and multi product companies like Johnson &
Johnson who utilize animals for product solidification. The ambiguity of
human suffering has led to the debate on animal cruelty because the end
justifies the means. Humans are an interesting, adapting species, and
because of such, those ends are not the same in humanity. Everyone has
their own motives, and those may not always be in the most philanthropic
mindset. I only leave you with a few thoughts. Imagine a world where
your mother has leukemia (no cure has been found yet), and animal
testing can provide a potential solution, saving your mother's life, do
you watch your mother slowly die? Or do you sacrifice a few animals who
had so strong impact on your life to save hers?
No comments:
Post a Comment