Still, a wide range of viewpoints exist. The view that animals have moral rights (animal rights) is a philosophical position proposed by Tom Regan, among others, who argues that animals are beings with beliefs and desires, and as such are the "subjects of a life" with moral value and therefore moral rights.Singer, Peter (ed.). "A Companion to Ethics". Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, 1991. Regan still sees ethical differences between killing human and non-human animals, and argues that to save the former it is permissible to kill the latter. Likewise, a "moral dilemma" view suggests that avoiding potential benefit to humans is unacceptable on similar grounds, and holds the issue to be a dilemma in balancing such harm to humans to the harm done to animals in research.Chapter 14, Discussion of ethical issues, p . 244 in: The ethics of research involving animals at the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Published 25 May 2005 In contrast, an abolitionist view in animal rights holds that there is no moral justification for any harmful research on animals that is not to the benefit of the individual animal. Bernard Rollin argues that benefits to human beings cannot outweigh animal suffering, and that human beings have no moral right to use an animal in ways that do not benefit that individual. Donald Watson has stated that vivisection and animal experimentation "is probably the cruelest of all Man's attack on the rest of Creation." Another prominent position is that of philosopher Peter Singer, who argues that there are no grounds to include a being's species in considerations of whether their suffering is important in utilitarian moral considerations.Rollin, Bernard E. (1998) "The moral status of animals and their use as experimental subjects," in Kuhse, Helga and Singer, Peter (eds.). "A Companion to Bioethics". Blackwell Publishing, . Malcolm Macleod and collaborators argue that most controlled animal studies do not employ randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding outcome assessment, and that failure to employ these features exaggerates the apparent benefit of drugs tested in animals, leading to a failure to translate much animal research for human benefit.
Still, a wide range of viewpoints exist. The view that animals have moral rights (animal rights) is a philosophical position proposed by Tom Regan, among others, who argues that animals are beings with beliefs and desires and as such are the "subjects of a life" with moral value and therefore moral rights.Singer, Peter (ed.). "A Companion to Ethics". Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, 1991. Regan still sees ethical differences between killing human and non-human animals, and argues that to save the former it is permissible to kill the latter. Likewise, a "moral dilemma" view suggests that avoiding potential benefit to humans is unacceptable on similar grounds, and holds the issue to be a dilemma in balancing such harm to humans to the harm done to animals in research.Chapter 14, Discussion of ethical issues, p . 244 in: The ethics of research involving animals at the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Published 25 May 2005 In contrast, an abolitionist view in animal rights holds that there is no moral justification for any harmful research on animals that is not to the benefit of the individual animal. Bernard Rollin argues that benefits to human beings cannot outweigh animal suffering, and that human beings have no moral right to use an animal in ways that do not benefit that individual. Donald Watson has stated that vivisection and animal experimentation "is probably the cruelest of all Man's attack on the rest of Creation." Another prominent position is that of philosopher Peter Singer, who argues that there are no grounds to include a being's species in considerations of whether their suffering is important in utilitarian moral considerations.Rollin, Bernard E (1998) "The moral status of animals and their use as experimental subjects," in Kuhse, Helga and Singer, Peter (eds.). "A Companion to Bioethics". Blackwell Publishing . Malcolm Macleod and collaborators argue that most controlled animal studies do not employ randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding outcome assessment, and that failure to employ these features exaggerates the apparent benefit of drugs tested in animals, leading to a failure to translate much animal research for human benefit.