Should Animals Be Used In Psychological Research?
             Before reading these articles I always believed that animals should be used for experimentation. After reading these articles I closely examined my viewpoints using the information gathered from the readings. Both articles were well written and both had very good points. These articles made me focus in on the popular assumptions that have misled the public for many years. After reading these articles I believe that I am more prepared to make judgments on the issue of animal experimentation.
             What am I being asked to believe or accept?
             These articles were debating on whether or not animals should be used in psychological research. Elizabeth Baldwin, author of the pro article, argues that "animals do not have rights in the same sense that humans do, but that people have a responsibility to ensure the humane treatment of animals under their care." Baldwin further explains that the "most persuasive argument for using animals is the untold benefit that accrues to both humans and animals." The flipside of that argument is that animals have every right that we as humans enjoy. Alan D. Boyd and Kenneth J. Shapiro, authors of the negative view, believe that " all creaturescapable of experiencing pain and other forms of suffering have an interest in being spared it."
             Is there evidence available to support the claim?
             In relationship to this question I found the articles very interesting. Elizabeth Baldwin cites two specific philosophies that support animal rights. Baldwin then explains the flaws of these theories. The first theory, utilitarian, is not effective for two reasons. The first reason is the fact that it is hard to draw a line between creatures that suffer and creatures that do not. The second reason is that the argument does not address qualitative differences in pain and pleasure across species. Baldwin also cites a national poll tha
             ...