|Reviews for Ethics of Animal Testing|
| Brian Johnson chapter 1 . 9/26/2014
This text was the biggest pile of wank I have ever encountered on my 12 years of internet history,
| Danielle chapter 1 . 5/10/2010
But where do you draw the line?
Many women would argue that the happiness they get from their expensive brand of lipstick outweighs the life worth of the animals it is tested on.
| Luna Lapella chapter 1 . 7/27/2005
"Take insulin, for example, it was discovered when an Ontario doctor severed the connection between the pancreas and the digestive system of a dog."
Do I spy a comma splice? Isn't "Take insulin, for example" a complete sentence? Therefore, the second comma should be a semicolon or period.
Well, it was good, but being 13, I don't exactly understand it all. For example, I have no idea what a utilitarian is. Of course, you weren't writing to explain it to kids, so that's understandable.
| Dream2Aspiration chapter 1 . 5/14/2005
It's a good essay. No grammatical nor spelling errors. Although, I have to say. Your arguments are weak on both sides, but especially on the case against it.
Animal Testing is a moral issue so you can't argue otherwise. The reason people are against it is because it is against moral issues. It is immoral to test on animal. They have souls and feelings and all of that. They are like humans.
The reason for animal testing is the same thing. It's to save a human life. Scientists can't find cures to deadly diseases without doing testings...if not animals then human. So, animal is supposed to be a better choice.
| Stories-have-souls chapter 1 . 2/17/2005
I am against animal testing, especially when it involves make up, which is non-essential. Good essay.
| On Mercury chapter 1 . 1/3/2005
Good essay, you're a good essay writer. Probably an A or a B in my book...not being insulting, just saying.
SilkandSpikes: Diabetes is usually put on the person by him or herself by eating too much sugar or fat. The question is, why should an animal have to suffer because some idiot decided to go to the donut store too many times and regretted it later.
Me: You just sound stupid. I know a diabetic (Ok, actually I know her brother, but whatever), and she was born with diabetes, she didn't "put it upon herself". Don't generalise like that.
sgfbird: And if we don't need make up then why do ppl spend a lot of money buying it?
Me: Because it's a luxury most of us happen to be able to afford. It's targeted at the insecure. I could go on and on about the make-up industry, but needless to say, it's not a "need" it's a want. That was also a pretty stupid statement.
Also, Gia E, I thought what you said was interesting, I hadn't heard of that before. Sounds weird. Like, weird messed-up and wrong.
| Nat Rich chapter 1 . 12/12/2004
You bring up some excellent points. Your writing, is mature, however that is not a perfect score essay in my oppinion. But, college works its funny ways.
| Guest chapter 1 . 7/16/2004
A point I knew to be true, though it's through memory:
The first breck in diabetes was made through finding sugar levels (I don't know much about it in general) in urine-not testing on animals. Did the dog suffer from diabetes? Did it gain anything through having it's pancreas and digestive systems connection severed? I don't know much about anatomy, but I'm pretty damn sure they were connected for some sort of reason. Why should the dog suffer? It was probably brutally mudered after by the monsters in white coats. There is no moral excuse for animal testing-you cannot say that animal testing is right and abortion is wrong. They are both murders of something that had no choice. However, it's legal. Why? I'm not that intelligent, but as the dominant species, we should take a higher responsibility, or accept that we are equals. There is no grey.
Small point: Nice essay, but too many long words!
| Gia E chapter 1 . 6/19/2004
it would be interesting to hear your (and others') opinions on animal patenting.
for those who don't know, animal patenting is a process that patents an animal that has been infected, altered, or made ill in any way for medical or cosmetic research. it was made legal in the 1980's, the first notable example being mice. the legal context refers to these altered animals as "machines", and of course it's very easy to treat machines however you want. recently, the first ever legal challenge went up against animal testing, contesting the ethics of considering 12-30 beagles infected with mold in their lungs to incite disease making it difficult to breathe. the actual worth of the research is also being contested.
this was a very well-written essay, so i'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on more animal-rights related things.
| LordUltima chapter 1 . 4/23/2004
You post some strange things, but other than that, an aged animal that is already on its last leg is usually as far as I will go for making testing on it acceptable
| freethephoenix chapter 1 . 3/31/2004
Hi, this is the author, I thought I'd address the previous review. I think many people are missing the point of this essay. I wrote it for an ethics class and I received an A grade, so I wanted to post it. This essay is merely taking utilitarian reasoning (which, yes, I know, is not particularly functional in the real world but it worked for the essay), and applying it to whether or not Animal Testing is wrong. These are not my views, these are my conclusions based on what utilitarian reasoning I studied. If you're confused as to which side I'm taking then you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. I'm not taking a side, I argued both sides from a purely utilitarian point of view.
I hope this helps to clear up everyone's questions.
| lilangelinnocenthotmail.com chapter 1 . 3/31/2004
I'm confused-are you against it, and sane, or with it and a phsycopathic (sp?)morally bankrupt loser? Not very clear from your essay. I personally fail to see how anybody could think it is acceptable to test on animals, because "their not as important as us", "they don't have souls" or "they don't feel as much pain or suffering". (All being real opinions of these pro-cruelty monsters). Some Humans have even claimed their here for "Us to use." There are, simply, no ethnics for animal testing, as millions (over 3 million in Britan according to one of Vernon Colemans books) of docters call it unreliable-wasn't it diabetes in which the first breakthroughs were made, like, a century ago without animal testing through study of the sugar levels in urin? (Sp?) It is like saying there are ethnics in someone climbing onto a horse to chase, torment and kill an innocnet, living creature for fun, then calling it a "sport". Is anyone could find an ethnic or reason in that, a true one, I would be a willing slave to them-cos I know it can't happen. I am afarid I missunderstood your essay on many points, because it wasn't, in my eyes, very clear-the reason I have actually written such a long essay is because it is a very passionate subject for me-the people in the race i belong to can be so arrogant, heartless and inhumane.
| sgfbird chapter 1 . 3/28/2004
Well they test make up on animals to make sure that the makeup doesn't cause diseases. And if we don't need make up then why do ppl spend a lot of money buying it?
| Radyn chapter 1 . 3/28/2004
There's a reason why Utilitarianism has never actually been implemented. It's been so thoroughly discredited that it's really not worth using as a philosophy anymore. The problem with philosophy like Utilitarianism and Objectivism is that it can be bastardized to justify things that were never the intent of the philosopher to do so.
| silkandspikes chapter 1 . 3/27/2004
This isn't a bad essay, it's pretty well written and it has no gramatical errors, but I'm really against your views. First of all, the reason there's such a case against animal testing is because the dog or whatever didn't ask to be tested on. From the animal's point of view, it was forced into torture, as you might call it, against it's will. Testing on animals for various cancers or something like that is okay, as long as the animal has that particular disease. If you inflict an animal with a disease just to get it tested, then that's wrong. Also, why would any idiot test makeup on an animal. For one, animals don't wear makeup, and also, makeup isn't nescesary for survival, as some people might think. In the case of diabetes, there's a whole different story. Diabetes is usually put on the person by him or herself by eating too much sugar or fat. The question is, why should an animal have to suffer because some idiot decided to go to the donut store too many times and regretted it later. God let us rule the animals, but I don't think that he wanted us to run tests on them to make the suffer. Technically, we ARE animals.