Immanuel Kant’s moral theory can effectively support and justify animal research as it suggests that autonomy determines whose interests should be considered while morally assessing various actions. Kant emphasized that humans and animals possess desires that force them to act in different ways; however, only humans can stand back from desires and choose the course of action to implement, depicting the absence of intrinsic value in animals. Since animals lack inherent value, humans can use animals for their benefit. Kant’s theory is surprising similar to Cartesian theories, which argue that animals do not warrant concern because they are unconscious (Pohl, 2019). As a result, they do not consider the outcomes of their actions. The animal rights theory assumes that animals have rights similar to humans. The theory relies on the inherent value concept to demand equal respect for animals and humans. However, Kant explains that animals do not have intrinsic value since they lack the will to restrain their desires and choose appropriate actions to pursue. In addition, if animals have equal rights, should humans be used in first-stage drug trials? Using mice, fruit flies, worms, and rats in biomedical research is morally permissible when the benefits outweigh the costs to humans. For example, mice and rats are frequently utilized in Alzheimer’s research, which, if successful, can bring invaluable benefits to the world. In addition, testing experimental drugs on humans for the first time is unsafe and could lead to the loss of human lives (Fiala & Mackinnon, 2018). Regarding pain, researchers should consider ensuring animals feel no pain or do not experience unnecessary discomfort throughout a study. Ultimately, the animal rights theory fails in convincing people of equal rights between humans and animals.
References
Fiala, A. & Mackinnon, B. (2018). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues (9th ed). Cengage Learning.
Pohl, A. (2019). Theories on animals and ethics. UConn Health.