Is it moral to experiment on animals

moral delimma例子(一)Moral DilemmaMoral dilemma refers to a situation where an individual is faced with two or more moral principles that are inconflict with one another. In such a situation, there is no clear answer or solution - any decision that is made will entail some level of moral compromise. Here are some examples of moral dilemmas:Example 1: The Trolley ProblemThe trolley problem is a classic example of a moral dilemma. It goes like this:A trolley is hurtling down a track and will hit and kill five people who are tied to the track. You are standing next to a lever that would divert the trolley onto another track, which only has one person tied to it. Do you pull the lever, sacrificing one life to save five?In this scenario, there are two moral principles at play: the principle of utility (i.e. saving as many lives as possible) and the principle of respecting individual rights(i.e. not sacrificing a life without consent). No matter what decision is made, it will involve a moral compromise. Example 2: The Heinz DilemmaThe Heinz dilemma is another classic example of a moral dilemma. It goes like this:A woman is dying of cancer and needs a drug that costs $10,000 to save her life. The drug maker is charging $10,000 for the drug, but Heinz (the woman’s husband) can onlyafford to pay $2,000. Should he steal the drug to save his wife’s life?In this scenario, there are two moral principles at play: the principle of respecting the law (i.e. not stealing) and the principle of utility (i.e. saving a life). Once again, any decision that is made will involve a moral compromise. Example 3: The Lying PatientIn this scenario, a patient has asked the doctor not to disclose a diagnosis of terminal illness to their family. The doctor is torn between respecting the patient’s autonomy and duty to disclose the diagnosis to the family.In this scenario, there are two moral principles at play: the principle of respecting the patient’s autonomy(i.e. the patient’s right to control the information about their illness) and the principle of beneficence (i.e. the doctor’s obligation to promote the well-being of the patient and their family). The doctor must decide whether to respect the patient’s wishes and keep the diagnosis confidential, or to disclose the diagnosis to the family in order to promote their well-being.Example 4: The Animal ExperimentIn this scenario, a scientist is conducting an experiment on animals in order to develop a potentially life-saving drug. The experiment involves causing pain and suffering to the animals, even though the end result may save many human lives.In this scenario, there are two moral principles at play: the principle of respecting the well-being of animals(i.e. not causing unnecessary pain and suffering) and the principle of promoting the well-being of humans(i.e. developing a life-saving drug). The scientist must decide whether to continue the experiment and risk causing harm to the animals, or to abandon the experiment and risknot developing a life-saving drug.ConclusionMoral dilemmas are complex situations that challenge our moral principles and require us to make difficult decisions. By understanding different examples of moral dilemmas and the principles at play, we can better navigate these situations and make decisions that are consistent with our own moral values.Example 5: The Insider TradingIn this scenario, a stockbroker has information about an upcoming merger that will significantly increase the value of a company’s stock. The stockbroker is torn between usingthis information to make a profit for themselves and their clients, and the ethical dilemma of using insider information to trade stocks.In this scenario, there are two moral principles at play: the principle of honesty and transparency (i.e. not using insider information to trade stocks) and the principle ofself-interest (i.e. making a profit for oneself and one’s clients). The stockbroker must decide whether to use the insider information to make a profit or to act with integrity and not use the information.Example 6: The End of Life CareIn this scenario, a patient is on life support and has no chance of recovery. The family is torn between ending life support and letting the patient pass away peacefully, and keeping the patient alive with the hope that they may recover.In this scenario, there are two moral principles at play: the principle of respecting the patient’s autonomy(i.e. the patient’s right to make decisions about their end of life care) and the principle of beneficence (i.e. the family’s obligation to promote the well-being of the patient). The family must decide whether to respect the patient’s wishes and end life support or to continue life support and hope for a recovery.Example 7: The Sweatshop WorkersIn this scenario, a company is using sweatshop labor in a third-world country to produce its products at a cheaper cost. The company is torn between the ethical dilemma of exploiting workers and the economic benefits of using cheaper labor.In this scenario, there are two moral principles at play: the principle of respecting workers’ rights and humandignity (i.e. not exploiting workers for profit) and the principle of economic benefits (i.e. reducing productioncosts and increasing profit). The company must decide whether to continue using sweatshop labor or to pay workers a fair wage and respect their rights.ConclusionMoral dilemmas arise in everyday life and require us to make difficult decisions that involve moral compromise. By understanding different examples of moral dilemmas and the principles at play, we can develop a framework for making ethical decisions that align with our own values and beliefs. Ultimately, the key to resolving a moral dilemma is to actwith integrity, honesty, and respect for all parties involved.。

对医学伦理的看法和建议英语作文全文共3篇示例，供读者参考篇1Medical Ethics: What's Right and Wrong?Hi there! My name is Sammy and I'm 10 years old. Today I want to share my thoughts on something really important called medical ethics. It's all about figuring out the right and wrong ways for doctors, nurses, and scientists to treat people.I know it sounds pretty serious, but it's actually super fascinating once you understand it. You see, medicine and science are always advancing, which is awesome because it means we can cure more diseases and help more people live healthier lives. But with all these new technologies and treatments, we also have to think carefully about how to use them properly.One big part of medical ethics is respecting people's rights and making sure they have a choice in their own treatment. Like, if a doctor wants to try an experimental new procedure on a patient, they need to explain everything clearly and get thepatient's permission first. No one should ever be forced into a medical treatment they don't want.It's also important that everyone gets treated fairly, regardless of things like their race, gender, age, or how much money they have. A poor person deserves the same quality healthcare as a rich person. Doctors and researchers can't just pick who to treat based on prejudices or personal preferences. That wouldn't be right or ethical at all.Speaking of fairness, I think it's really wrong when drug companies charge too much money for life-saving medicines that people need. Making a profit is one thing, but pricing drugs so high that some people literally can't afford them? That's just greedy and unethical in my book. I feel like there should be more rules around that kind of thing.Another huge issue in medical ethics is animal testing. I totally get why scientists need to experiment on animals first before trying new treatments on humans. We don't want unsafe medicines hurting people! But at the same time, I really feel bad for the lab mice, monkeys, and other creatures that get experimented on. I think we should only use animals for testing when it's absolutely necessary, and even then we need to treat them as humanely as possible.Medical ethics also deals with super mind-boggling questions about life itself. Like, when does life actually begin? Is it at conception, when the sperm first meets the egg? Or is it not until the fetus can survive outside the womb? Different religions and philosophies have different views on this. For doctors and pregnant women considering abortions, it's an incredibly difficult ethical dilemma with no clear right or wrong answer.Cloning and genetic engineering raise similarly huge ethical questions. Is it okay to create cloned human babies? What about genetically modifying embryos to eliminate inherited diseases? It could prevent a lot of suffering, but it also means we're playing God a little bit and "designing" what humans will be like. It's a very slippery slope.Basically, almost every area of medicine and biology involves at least some ethical concerns we need to think through. That's why I think medical ethics should absolutely be taught in schools, starting from a young age. We're the next generation who will face these dilemmas, so we better start learning about them now!I don't claim to have all the answers - these are seriously complex issues that even leading experts disagree on. But here's what I suggest:First, we need openness, honesty, and clear communication between doctors, patients, and the public. No sketchy business or sneaky cover-ups allowed! Everyone deserves to understand what's happening and make informed decisions.Second, we should have groups of outside experts (not just from the medical field, but also ethicists, religious leaders, patient advocates, and regular citizens) who closely examine ethical issues and set guidelines. Their input could help shape policies and regulations.Third, the most ethical path for any medical situation is usually the one that reduces suffering and maximizes the wellbeing of everyone involved - patients, families, medical staff, and society as a whole. If an action or policy is causing more harm than good, it's probably unethical.Finally, I think we need to teach ethics, logic, and moral reasoning in school just as much as science, math, and other subjects. Understanding different ethical frameworks like utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics could really help people navigate tough ethical choices in medicine and beyond.Those are just my thoughts as a kid, but I feel pretty passionate about this stuff. Medicine has incredible power to heal and improve lives, but with great power comes greatresponsibility to wield it ethically. Here's to hoping we can create a healthcare system that is wise, compassionate, and does no harm!篇2My Views on Medical EthicsHi there! My name is Emily and I'm going to share my thoughts on an important topic called medical ethics. It's about doing the right thing when it comes to medicine and healthcare.First, what even is medical ethics? Well, it's all the rules and principles that doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers should follow to make sure they treat people properly and don't cause any harm. It covers things like respecting patients' privacy, getting their permission before treatment, and always working hard to help people get better.Why is medical ethics so crucial? Because people's health and even their lives are at stake! Doctors have a lot of responsibility and power over sick people. With that power, they need to be ethical and caring. Can you imagine how scary it would be if doctors didn't have good ethics and just did whatever they wanted?One of the biggest parts of medical ethics is respecting patient autonomy. That's a fancy way of saying patients have the right to make decisions about their own care. Doctors can't just do procedures or give medicines without the patient understanding what's happening and agreeing to it.Informed consent is the process where doctors explain the treatment options, risks, and benefits in a way the patient can understand. Then the patient can decide if they want that treatment or not. It's so important because it respects the patient as a human being who gets to control their own body.However, things get trickier when patients can't make decisions for themselves, like if they're unconscious or have dementia. In those cases, doctors have to get permission from a loved one or follow clear instructions the patient left when they were of sound mind. It's all about doing what's best for the patient based on their own wishes as much as possible.Privacy is another huge part of medical ethics. All of a patient's personal health information has to be kept confidential and secure. Their medical records can only be shared with people directly involved in their care, not just anyone. Can you imagine how embarrassing and upsetting it would be if your privatehealth details got spread around? Doctors have to respect patients' privacy no matter what.Then there are the tough ethical dilemmas that don't have any clear right or wrong answers. Like how to fairly allocate limited medical resources if there's a shortage. Or whether to keep terminally ill patients on life support against their will. Or how much kids get to decide about their own treatment versus their parents' wishes.With dilemmas like those, doctors have to carefully consider ethical principles like respecting autonomy, avoiding harm, treating people fairly and equally, and always acting in the patient's best interests. Often there are different ethical principles conflicting with each other, so doctors have to use wise judgment for each tricky situation.Speaking of patients' best interests, that's the core duty for all healthcare workers. They're supposed to do everything they can to promote health and wellbeing while never intentionally harming patients. Seems obvious, but it rules out unethical things like giving somebody the wrong treatment on purpose, withholding care for money reasons, or taking advantage of patients.Another ethical issue is how to balance telling the truth with being caring. Like, should terminally ill patients always be told upfront about their condition and grim prognosis? Or is it sometimes better to be a bit less brutally honest to avoid destroying their hope? There's no universal right answer, it depends on judging each case carefully.Those are some of the biggest ethical concerns in healthcare from my perspective. But why listen to a kid about this serious stuff, you might ask? Well, even as children, we have wisdom and important perspectives to contribute when it comes to ethics!Kids are affected by the ethical behavior of doctors too when we need medical treatment. We can tell when grownups aren't being honest with us or aren't respecting our opinions. It really matters to us that doctors build trusting relationships and don't just talk down to us.Plus, those of us curious kids who love learning about science, medicine, and how the world works have been pondering ethical principles for a long time. We might not use the fancy philosophical terms yet, but we're definitely thinking about stuff like fairness, honesty, and treating others how we'd want to be treated.So in my humble opinion as a youngster very invested in medical ethics, here are my top suggestions for doctors and everyone involved in healthcare:Always, always, always put the patient's wellbeing first, ahead of making money or any other motives. Protect and care for people to the absolute best of your ability.Be honest, kind, and build real understanding and trust with your patients and their families. Explain things in a friendly, reassuring way we can grasp. Don't lie or keep us in the dark.Let patients be in charge of decisions about their own care as much as possible, unless they legitimately can't make safe choices for themselves. Don't force treatment on people against their will.Keep all private health details totally confidential. Never gossip or blab people's personal medical stuff to those not involved in providing care.If you're ever faced with a really difficult ethical dilemma where the right choice isn't obvious, take a step back and think it through carefully using ethical principles and judgment. Don't just go with your first instinct.Treat every single patient fairly and equally with compassion, regardless of who they are. Don't let demographics, social status, or ability to pay influence the care you give.If you're struggling with an ethical issue, ask for advice from other professionals, ethicists, spiritual advisors, and the patient themselves if appropriate. You're not alone!As healthcare workers, make ethics an ongoing Priority for learning and reflection. Stay updated on ethical guidelines, think deeply about ethical case studies, and always keep questioning andimproving.If you ever see unethical behavior from colleagues that's harming patients, don't ignore it—report it through proper channels so it can be addressed. Safety comes before loyalty.Remember that little things matter too, like treating patients, families, and coworkers with basic respect and kindness every single day. Ethics and caring should be a constant.Well, those are my views and suggestions when it comes to medical ethics! I know ethics can be complicated with lots of gray areas. But it's so valuable for doctors to slow down and really think it all through, instead of taking shortcuts that could hurt people.At the end of the day, healthcare is all about relieving suffering and saving lives. If doctors treat patients with honesty, compassion, and respect for their rights while always striving to benefit humanity, that's true medical ethics in action. Thanks for listening, and let's keep working towards more ethical healthcare for all!篇3Medical Ethics: Helping People the Right WayHi there! My name is Jamie and I'm a 5th grader. Today I want to talk to you about something really important called medical ethics. It's all about the proper way for doctors, nurses, and others in healthcare to treat people. While taking care of sick people is great, we also have to think carefully about ethics - doing the right thing.First off, what even is medical ethics? Well, it refers to the moral principles and values that guide how healthcare professionals do their jobs. Things like respecting patients, being honest with them, and not causing harm. Medical ethics helps doctors make tough choices when there are different perspectives on what's right.One of the biggest issues in medical ethics is respecting patient autonomy. That means allowing patients to make their own informed decisions about their care as much as possible. Doctors can't just tell you what to do - they need to explain all the options, risks, and benefits, then let you decide for yourself. Unless you're too young or unable to understand, you get to choose what happens to your own body. My parents taught me the importance of being able to make my own choices.Another key medical ethics concept is beneficence. That's just a fancy way of saying doctors should act in the best interest of their patients. Their main goal should be promoting wellbeing and doing good, not making money or achieving success for themselves. A good doctor cares more about healing you than getting paid.Speaking of money, there's also the principle of justice. This says healthcare resources like medicines, equipment, and skilled staff should be distributed fairly. It's not right if only rich people can get quality care while the poor suffer. Everyone deserves access to affordable healthcare that meets their needs.Then we have non-maleficence, which means "do no harm." Healthcare shouldn't make people sicker or hurt them more than they already are! Doctors have to be really careful with riskyprocedures and side effects from treatment. If the risks outweigh the benefits, maybe it's better not to intervene.Honesty and truthfulness are crucial too. Doctors can't lie to patients or give them false hope. We have a right to know what's really going on with our health, even if the news is bad. It might be hard to hear, but we can handle it - kids are tougher than adults think! The doctors just need to explain it in a sensitive way we can understand.There are a whole bunch of other principles I could discuss, like privacy, confidentiality, compassion, and human dignity. But I want to talk about some of the biggest ethical dilemmas in healthcare that don't have easy answers.One example is deciding how to allocate limited medical resources when there's not enough for everyone who needs them. If there's only one ICU bed left, one ventilator, one kidney for transplant, etc., how do we choose who gets it? Age? Income level? Parental status? It's an unimaginably hard choice that doctors and hospitals face every day.Another tricky issue is end-of-life care. When someone is terminally ill and suffering a lot, is it ethical to help them pass away peacefully instead of extending their life as long as possible? Different religions and cultures have different perspectives onthis. In my opinion, people should be allowed to decide for themselves through an advance directive.I'm glad I'm not the one having to make those calls! But even kids like me face ethical decisions around healthcare sometimes. Like, if your friend is doing something dangerous or unhealthy, do you snitch on them to an adult or respect their privacy? There's no perfect answer.So those are some of the heavy issues doctors have to grapple with. But ethics also comes into play on simpler levels we can understand. Like, a doctor shouldn't laugh at you for being scared of needles. Healthcare workers need to be kind and have good bedside manners. They should clearly explain things instead of using big fancy words kids don't know. And they definitely shouldn't discriminate against patients for their race, gender, disability status, or anything else.What can we do to make sure doctors follow good medical ethics? Well, first we have to learn what ethical behavior looks like! Schools should teach students about these core principles from a young age. Maybe have a class discussion after reading a book about a doctor facing an ethical dilemma.We can also have codes of ethics that medical workers have to learn and agree to follow. That way there are clear rules andthey can get in trouble for unethical actions. Having an ethics committee at hospitals to advise on tough cases is a good idea too.Of course, doctors are only human and can make mistakes. So there need to be ways for patients to report unethical conduct without fearing retaliation. And that brings up another point - whistleblowers who call out wrongdoing shouldn't be punished or lose their jobs. protecting them is ethical too!I also think it's important for kids to be involved in their own healthcare decisions as much as possible based on their age. If a treatment affects our lives, we should have a say! Don't just talk over our heads in front of us. Ask for our input and make sure we understand what's going on.Above all, doctors and everyone else need to see patients as human beings, not just broken bodies to be fixed. We have thoughts, feelings, and opinions that matter. Treat us with compassion, empathy and respect our rights and dignity. Ethical healthcare is truly care that puts the "care" in healthcare!So in conclusion, medical ethics is a crucial part of providing quality care to all. There are lots of ethical principles like patient autonomy, beneficence, justice, and non-maleficence that healthcare workers need to uphold. But there are also thornyethical dilemmas with no clear right answer. All we can do is think critically, have open discussions from different viewpoints, and make the most ethical choice we can in each complex situation. By learning ethics early and demanding ethical conduct from providers, we can build a more ethical, humane healthcare system that truly puts patients first. Thanks for reading - I'll see you at my next lecture!。

动物实验应该被禁止吗？AnimalTestingAnimal Testing Should Be Banned?1. For hundreds of years, animals such as mice and monkeys have been experimented on for scientific and medical research. Mostly, animal testing is used for some procedures, drugs or other substances to observe if they will do harm to human beings. By doing so, some animals can not avoid suffering and even many die from it. It has remained one of the most questionable topics. Animal rights activists have long called on the government and society to absolutely ban any animal testing to protect animals’ rights. However, today I want to argue for the importance and necessity of the experiments on non-human creatures and show you the reasons why we should not ban animal testing completely.2. First, we should thank the millions of animals dedicated to medical research throughout history,without which, we would probably not be alive now. One historical fact is that some medicine, such as influenza vaccine which has saved innumerous human beings’ lives in history, would not exist, but for animal testing. Because of animal testing, “both humans and animals now have life-saving surgical procedures, cancer therapies, organ transplantation, vaccines, safe consumer products and treatments and cures for countless other medical disorders and diseases”(AALAS). “Most of our children have not even heard of many of the diseases our ancestors experienced first-hand. Why? They have either been eradicated or can be controlled due to findings from research using animals” (AALAS). Just imagine the picture: if there were no animal testing for medical research, we human beings could have been threatened with extinction inthe battles against successive and subversive waves of deadly viruses and unruly bacteria.3. Even today, many new drugs must be tested on different animals before they can be marketed and used on human beings. According to the current British law, every new drug must be tested on at least two different kinds of mammal animals (BBC), which indicates that animals are still necessary for drug testing.4. Some people may criticize, “it is immoral and inhumane to make many innocent animalssuffer and even die from the experiments imposed on t hem.”It is partly true. Indeed, animal experiments for cosmetics and animal abuses in the name of experimentation are generally opposed by us. Anyway humans’ beauty is much inferior to animals’ lives. I firmly reject that kind of experiments on animals. Ye t when it comes to saving human beings’ lives and protecting men’s basic interests, we would rather use animals as testing subjects than use humans.5. In some cases, it’s an either-or question: to test on animals or on human beings, when there are few other options under the current scientific circumstances. I believe that scientists are never blind to animals’suffering, and that they always take a comprehensive consideration before they decide on an animal for testing. Nobody of normal conscience wants an innocent life to perish. It’s only when we have no alternative methods that we have to use animals, but we try our best to minimize their pains during the testing. For example, offer the lab animals the best living conditions and use anaesthetics to reduce their suffering. We can make it possible to carry out experiments on animals without making them suffer much. Otherwise, it would be immoral to risk a human life when some medicine could betested on a non-human animal.6. Some people may rebut again: it is unequal to satisfy men’s interests by sacrificing animals’ interests. Actually, to tell the truth, in principle and also in practice, to achieve equality between humans and animals is difficult and even impossible.7. Biologically, to achieve human-animal equality is against the principle of biological chain existing on earth, because it’s an undisputed truth that human beings are at the top of the chain, which means that it’s prescribed by the law of nature that the omnivore mankind feeds on other creatures. You can not criticize a fierce wolf’s cruelty to a mild little sheep because it is the law of nature that animals of higher level of the chain kill and feed on those of lower level of it. You can not call it “unequal”, just as you will not regard yo ur act of eating chicken as “unequal” or “unacceptable”.8. Morally, it’s such an irony that on one hand some people treat their pets such as cats or dogs as their family members and call on society to protect animals’rights, but on the other hand they never refuse a delicious beef steak. Is the life of a pet more important than that of a head of cattle? Then the equality they want to achieve is a hypocritical abstract one because in practice it’s impossible. In a way, reducing human suffering is similar to stuffing humans’stomachs since they are both basic human needs for survival. It’s acceptable to satisfy such human need as eating animals, so it should also be acceptable to satisfy such human need as reducing human suffering by animal testing. If one was suffering on a hospital ward, he would not care whether a cure is based on an animal’s suffering.9. Therefore, to achieve the equality is impractical. It’s moreimportant to reduce human suffering than to prevent animals’ suffering.10. Whether it is moral to experiment on animals for medical research is still controversial, because it depends on whether animals have their own moral status which also remains controversial within science, ethics and psychology. But one thing is undisputed that it’s immora l and unequal to risk human lives.11. In conclusion, currently, to completely ban animal testing is to cripple the research on new cures, to paralyze the medical science, and to make more human beings suffer. It’s impossible to completely do away with scientific experiments on animals. Questionable as it is, animal testing is still necessary.Works citedAALAS. American Association for Laboratory Animal Science. The Importance of Animals in Biomedical Research.BBC. Student Life- Debate.Parallelism：1. saving human beings’ lives and protecting men’s basic interests;2. in principle and also in practice;3. to completely ban animal testing is to cripple the research on new cures, to paralyze the medical science, and to make more human beings suffer.4. It’s acceptable to satisfy such human need as eating animals, so it should also be acceptable to satisfy such human need as reducing human suffering by animal testing.Alliteration:1. a comprehensive consideration;2. successive, subversive waves3.immoral and inhumane;4. in principle and also in practice;Metaphor:1.in the battles against successive waves of deadly viruses and unruly bacteria;2. successive, subversive waves of deadly viruses and unruly bacteria.Analogy:1.You can not call it “unequal”, just as you will not regard your act of eating chicken as“unequal” or “unacceptable”Contrast:1. on one hand some people treat their pets such as cats or dogs as their family members andcall on society to protect animals’ rights, but on the other hand they never refuse a delicious beef steak.Exemplification:1.For example, offer the lab animals the best living conditions and use anaesthetics to reducetheir suffering.2.You can not criticize a fierce wolf’s cruelty to a mild little sheep.Cause and effect: paragraph2, 7Deduction: paragraph 2, 3, 5, 7, 8Refutation: paragraph 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Appeal to emotion:1.I believe that scientists are never blind to animals’suffering, and that they always take acomprehensive consideration before they decide on an animal for testing. Nobody of normal conscience wants an innocent life to perish.2.Just imagine the picture: if there were no animal testing for medical research, we humanbeings could have been threatened with extinction in the battles against successive waves of deadly viruses and unruly bacteria.3.Yet when it comes to saving human beings’ lives and protecting men’s basic interests, wewould rather use animals as testing subjects than use humans.Appeal to authority:1.Biologically, to achieve human-animal equality is against the principle of biological chain onearth, because it’s an undisputed truth that human beings are at the top of the chain, which means that it’s prescribed by the law of nature that the omnivore mankind feeds on other creatures.2.both humans and animals now have life-saving surgical procedures, cancer therapies, organtransplantation, vaccines, safe consumer products and treatments and cures for countless other medical disorders and diseases”(AALAS)Structure of the essay:Introduction: paragraph 1Argumentation: paragraph 2, 3 (positive argument)paragraph 4,5 (negative argument)Paragraph 6,7,8,9 (negative argument)Conclusion: paragraph 10,11。

Is it moral to experiment on animals?Every day people are saved with medications resulting from testing done on between 17 million and 22 million animals a year. Yet, controversy remains as to how crucial it is to continue using healthy animals for such tests. Although researchers have depended on animal testing for medical advances, there should be other ways of research because animal testing is inhumane and often unnecessary.Scientists have argued that it is impossible to know when an animal is suffering because they have no language. However, Ludwig Wittgenstein, an influential Austrian philosopher of the 20th century argued, "If someone is screaming, clutching a part of their body, moaning quietly, or apparently unable to function, especially when followed by an event that we believe would cause pain in ourselves, that is in large measure what it means to be in pain." Animals have a limited capacity to suffer because of the absence of a central nervous system. However, all animals have the right to be treated as valuable beings. Infecting animals with AIDS, noxious chemicals and radiation should not be tolerated.scientists should put equal effort into inventing new testing methods and save the animals.During this test, albino rabbits are restrained and chemicals are dropped into their eyes. Not only can the rabbits break their necks trying to escape from their restraints, but the chemicals can cause severe pain and blindness.Not only is makeup not important to society, using animals to test it is very unnecessary. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require cosmetic companies to test on animals and companies like Avon and Mary Kay have eliminated animal testing on their products. The European Union has banned animal testing for all beauty and hygiene productsIn my opinion, I think it is immoral to use animal for medical research. I strongly urge everyone to buy animal-friendly cosmetics and household products for the sake of ending animal testing.We should take strict laws . In any experiment, all animals should be shown the same respect any human being would be given. Since animal cruelty persists today, society must recognize and prevent them.。

Animal rightsThere is much disagreement as to whether non-human animals have rights, and what is meant by animal rights.There is much less disagreement about the consequences of accepting that animals have rights.The consequences of animal rightsAnimal rights teach us that certain things are wrong as a matter of principle, that there are some things that it is morally wrong to do to animals.Human beings must not do those things, no matter what the cost to humanity of not doing them.Human beings must not do those things, even if they do them in a humane way.For example: if animals have a right not to be bred and killed for food then animals must not be bred and killed for food.It makes no difference if the animals are given 5-star treatment throughout their lives and then killed humanely without any fear or pain - it's just plain wrong in principle, and nothing can make it right.Accepting the doctrine of animal rights means:•No experiments on animals•No breeding and killing animals for food or clothes or medicine•No use of animals for hard labour•No selective breeding for any reason other than the benefit of the animal•No hunting•No zoos or use of animals in entertainmentTop The case for animal rightsPhilosophers have usually avoided arguing that all non-human animals have rights because:•the consequences are so limiting for humanity•it would give rights to creatures that are so simple that the idea of them having rights seems to defy common senseThe second problem is dealt with by not arguing that all animals have rights, but only that 'higher' animals have rights.One leading author restricts right to mentally normal mammals at least one year old (called 'adult mammals' from now on).The case for animal rightsThe case for animal rights is usually derived from the case for human rights.The argument (grossly oversimplified) goes like this:•Human animals have rights•There is no morally relevant difference between human animals and adult mammals•Therefore adult mammals must have rights tooHuman beings and adult mammals have rights because they are both'subjects-of-a-life'.This means that:•They have similar levels of biological complexity•They are conscious and aware that they exist•They know what is happening to them•They prefer some things and dislike others•They make conscious choices•They live in such a way as to give themselves the best quality of life•They plan their lives to some extent•The quality and length of their life matters to themIf a being is the subject-of-a-life then it can be said to have 'inherent value'.All beings with inherent value are equally valuable and entitled to the same rights.Their inherent value doesn't depend on how useful they are to the world, and it doesn't diminish if they are a burden to others.Thus adult mammals have rights in just the same way, for the same reasons, and to the same extent that human beings have rights.TopThe case against animal rightsA number of arguments are put forward against the idea that animals have rights.•Animals don't think•Animals are not really conscious•Animals were put on earth to serve human beings•Animals don't have souls•Animals don't behave morally•Animals are not members of the 'moral community'•Animals lack the capacity for free moral judgment•Animals don't thinkSt Thomas Aquinas taught that animals acted purely on instinct while human beings engaged in rational thought.This distinction provided the frontier between human beings and animals, and was regarded as a suitable criterion for assessing a being's moral status.Animals are not really consciousThe French philosopher Rene Descartes, and many others, taught that animals were no more than complicated biological robots.This meant that animals were not the sort of thing that was entitled to have any rights - or indeed any moral consideration at all.Animals were put on earth to serve human beingsThis view comes originally from the Bible, but probably reflects a basic human attitude towards other species.Christian theologians developed this idea - St Augustine taught that "by a most just ordinance of the Creator, both their [animals'] life and their death are subject to our use."St Thomas Aquinas taught that the universe was constructed as a hierarchy in which beings at a lower level were there to serve those above them.As human beings were above animals in this hierarchy they were entitled to use animals in any way they wanted.However, as C.S. Lewis pointed out:Animals don't have soulsChristian theologians used to teach that only beings with souls deserved ethical consideration.Animals did not have souls and therefore did not have any moral rights.This argument is no longer regarded as useful, because the idea of the soul is very controversial and unclear, even among religious people. Furthermore it is not possible to establish the existence of the soul (human or animal) in a valid experimental way.This also makes it difficult to argue, as some theologians have done, that animals should have rights because they do have souls.Top Animals aren't 'moral'Some of the arguments against animal rights centre on whether animals behave morally.Rights are unique to human beings•rights only have meaning within a moral community•only human beings live in a moral community•adult mammals don't understand or practice living according to a moral code•the differences in the way human beings and adult mammals experience the world are morally relevant•therefore rights is a uniquely human concept and only applies to human beings Animals don't behave morallySome argue that since animals don't behave in a moral way they don't deserve moral treatment from other beings.Animals, it's argued, usually behave selfishly, and look after their own interests, while human beings will often help other people, even if doing so is to their own disadvantage.Not all scientists agree: Jane Goodall, an expert on chimpanzees has reported that they sometimes show truly altruistic behaviour.Animals don't have rights against other animalsAnother reason for thinking that animals don't behave morally is that even the most enthusiastic supporters of animal rights only argue that animals have rights against human beings, not against other animals.For example, as Mary Warnock put it:Why this might be relevant to the question of whether animals should have rights becomes clearer if you rephrase it in terms of duties or obligations instead of rights and ask - why should human beings have obligations towards animals, if animals don't have obligations to other animals or to human beings?Top Moral communityThis argument states that animals are not members of the 'moral community'.• A moral community is• a group of beings who live in relationship with each other and use and understand moral concepts and rules•the members of this community can respect each other as moral persons •the members of this community respect each other's autonomy•human beings do display these characteristics and are therefore members of the 'moral community'•animals do not display these characteristics and are therefore not members of the 'moral community'•most people would agree with this: after all we don't regard a dog as having done something morally wrong when it bites someone - if the dog is put to death because of the bite, that is to protect people, not to punish the dog•only members of a 'moral community' can have rights, therefore animals don't have rights•members of the 'moral community' are more 'valuable' than beings that are not members of the moral community•it is not wrong for valuable beings to 'use' less valuable beings•therefore it is not wrong for human beings to use animalsAnimals lack the capacity for free moral judgements•If an individual lacks the capacity for free moral judgment, then they do not have moral rights.•All non-human animals lack the capacity for free moral judgment.•Therefore, non-human animals do not have moral rights.Top Fundamental rightsAnimal and human rights boil down to one fundamental right: the right to be treated with respect as an individual with inherent value.Philosophers have a traditional way of expressing this:From this fundamental right come other rights.Particular species only get relevant and useful rights - so animals don't get all the rights that human beings get. For example: animals don't want or get the right to vote.When rights conflictSometimes a particular situation results in a conflict of rights.Two methods can be used to determine the best course of action when there is no alternative to violating the rights of some individual or group:•The Miniride Principle: Where similar harms are involved, override the fewest individuals' rights.•The Worse-off Principle: Where dissimilar harms are involved, avoid harming the worse-off individual.Harm is defined as the reduction of the capacity to have and fulfil desires.This definition of harm benefits people over animals because human beings have far more desires that they want to satisfy than do non-human animals.This resolves many of the traditional problems of humans versus animals in favour of humanity, because the human being under consideration would suffer far more harm than the non-human animal.But be careful: this method of choosing alternative courses of action is not utilitarian, it doesn't necessarily lead to choosing the course of action that produces the greatest overall happiness.Top The problem of 'marginal people'The phrase 'marginal people' or 'marginal human beings' is unpleasant. We use it here only because if you read the literature of animal rights you will encounter it often, and it's important to know what it means. We do not intend to denigrate the status or worth of any human being by using it here...The problem with the line of thought in the section above that it takes rights away from many human beings as well as from non-human animals.This is because some human beings (babies, senile people, people with some severe mental defects and people in a coma) don't have the capacity for free moral judgement either, and by this argument they wouldn't have any rights.Some philosophers are prepared to argue that in fact such 'marginal human beings' don't have rights, but most people find that conclusion repellent.The argument can be rescued by rewriting it like this:•If an individual is a member of a species that lacks the capacity for free moral judgment, then he or she does not have moral rights.•All non-human animal species lack the capacity for free moral judgment.•Therefore, non-human animals do not have moral rights.But this is not an argument; it's a statement that human beings have rights andnon-human animals don't, which is pure speciesism, and hardly persuasive.It's also vulnerable to the (probably unlikely) arrival of a species of extra-terrestrial creatures who demonstrate the capacity for free moral judgement.。

是否应该用动物做实验英语作文英文回答：The use of animals in scientific research is a highly controversial topic. Proponents of animal experimentation argue that it is essential for advancing medical knowledge and developing treatments for human diseases. They point to the many breakthroughs that have been made thanks to animal research, including the development of vaccines, antibiotics, and surgical techniques. Some even argue that animal experimentation is morally justified because it has the potential to save human lives.Opponents of animal experimentation, on the other hand, argue that it is cruel and unnecessary. They point to the suffering that animals endure in laboratories and arguethat there are alternative methods of research that do not involve the use of animals. Some opponents also argue that animal experimentation is not reliable, because animals are not good models for human diseases.The debate over animal experimentation is complex and there are no easy answers. However, it is important to be aware of the arguments on both sides of the issue and to weigh the benefits and risks of animal research before making a decision.中文回答：动物试验是一种极具争议性的课题。

Unit 8 College LifeLanguage points(1) conduct: vt. carry out or direct; go with and guide or lead---We are conducting a survey of consumer attitudes towards organic food.---Is it really necessary to conduct experiments on animals?Collocation:conduct a meeting 主持会议conduct an investigation 进行调查(2) attain: vt. gain or arrive at, esp. after long effort; reach---India attained independence in 1947.---I would tell them that they could attain levels of quality and customer satisfaction greater than they had ever imagined.CF: attain, achieve & accomplish这三个动词均有“达到、完成”之意。

attain 指努力去达成或实现目标，常指事先没有确信会成功而去追求的目标。

例如:---She finally attained her ends.她终于达到了她的目的。

---Kacy attained the rank of deputy director.凯茜当上副经理了。

achieve 指由于功绩或努力而理所当然应该得到的成功。

例如:---He will never achieve his objectives if he does not work harder.如果不加倍努力的话，他永远也实现不了他的目标。

Unit 8Words and Expressions1. conduct: vt. carry out or direct; go with and guide or lead* We are conducting a survey of consumer attitudes towards organic food.* Is it really necessary to conduct experiments on animals?Collocation:conduct a meetingconduct an investigation2. innate: adj. (of a quality) which someone was born with* The kids have an innate curiosity about the physical world.孩子具有天生的学习语言的能力。

翻译：3. attain: vt. gain or arrive at, esp. after long effort; reach* India attained independence in 1947.* I would tell them that they could attain levels of quality and customer satisfaction greater than they had ever imagined.CF: attain, achieve & accomplish这三个动词均有“达到、完成”之意。

attain 指努力去达成或实现目标，常指事先没有确信会成功而去追求的目标。

achieve 指由于功绩或努力而理所当然应该得到的成功。

accomplish指完成规定的任务。

Directions: Fill in the blanks with the words above. Change the form where necessary.1) He ________ the building of the bookcase.2) She finally _______ her ends.3) Kacy_______ the rank of deputy director.4) He will never ______ his objectives if he does not work harder.4. academic: adj.concerning education, esp. college or university level; being or based on subjects that are taught to develop the mind rather than to provide practical skills* Her name is well known in academic circles.academic research 学术研究an academic degree 学位an academic discussion 学术讨论an academic year 学年5. principle: n. a truth or belief that is accepted as a base for reasoning or action; the general rules on which a skill, science, etc. is based, and which a beginner must understand* He prided himself on his high moral principles (= strong ideas about how it is right or wrong to behave).* Schools try to teach children a set of principles.Collocation:against somebody’s princi ples 违背原则* It’s against my principles to accept gifts from clients.a person of principle 有原则的人* He considered himself to be a man of principle.in principle 原则上* In principle, the new software should make the accounting system a lot simpler.6. priority: n. something that needs attention, consideration, service, etc. before others* After several burglaries in the area, security is now a high priority.Collocation:a first/top/main priority 优先考虑的问题* Road building is a top priority. 道路建设是应最优先考虑的事情。