Companies that develop various products for human use require regular testing of the
products to ascertain the safety of use. Due to the uncertainty new products may come with,
inventors had to develop a way to ensure that every product is safe for human consumption
before being released into the market. Scientists and product inventors turned to animals such as
pigs, monkeys, and rats, among others for scientific testing. Such tests may be severe to the
extent of causing pain and changing the quality of life to the animals. Some people argue that the
experiments are cruel and unethical as supported by the Divine Command Theory and Kantian
Theory. However, some argue that the tests are harmless and beneficial to the world using the
utilitarian theory.
Objectors of animal experiments argue that they are a form of cruelty mainly because
they cause pain and interfere with the ordinary lives of animals. The Divine Command Theory
directs that humans are obliged to protect and care for the animals thus proving that animals are
supposed to be taken care of and given a healthy life. Similarly, the Kantian theory goes to show
that the experiments are not justified just because they benefit humanity (Groves, 2001). One
such cruelty is seen in the cosmetic industry where rabbits are used to test if products irritate the
eyes, which leaves most rabbits with sore eyes before a harmless product can be identified. The
Kantian theory shows that wanting to give humans irritant-free products is not enough to inflict
such pain on the animals.
However, some use the utilitarian theory to argue that experiments on animals cannot be
termed as cruelty. The theory states that consequences overrule means, where whatever done to
animals is considered right if it brings a balanced result of advantages and benefits compared to
the range pain animals go through (Blazina, Boyra, & Shen-Miller, 2011). Thus the argument
VIEWS ON ANIMAL CRUELTY 3
that experimentation and testing are necessary to prevent harm and in some cases death, of
humans. The theory, however, fails to identify with the animal’s side and does not put into
account the life and feelings of the animals once experimented on. Animals should be handled
like other creatures, and the fact that they are unable to voice out complaints should not subject
them to harm.
VIEWS ON ANIMAL CRUELTY 4
References
Blazina, C., Boyra, G., & Shen-Miller, D. S. (2011). The psychology of the human-animal bond.
New York, NY, USA:: Springer.
Groves, J. M. (2001). Animal rights and the politics of emotion: folk constructs of emotions in
the animal rights movement. Passionate politics: Emotions and social movements,