Animal experimentation is immoral.

I always enjoy deeply contemplating on a divisive issue with a serious opponent in a debate. That said, I'll now go straight to serious business. First I must defend what my opponent calls a 'cognitive dissonance' in my arguments. I should make it clearer what I meant. I stated that I do not dispute the fact that animal experimentation aids research. I agree to the notion that animal experimentation is a useful tool in research, but am pointing out that it still carries flaws. We justify the use of animals for their similarities to the human body and its systems, without clear knowledge of how these unclear differences amount to different effects in the human body. I acknowledge, however, that my second point isn't really my major point in discussing the morality of the experiments. I also believe that my opponent is also slightly misinterpreting the topic of this debate. I stated in the resolution that "animal experimentation is immoral", not that "animal experimentation should be banned because it is immoral. " In other words I am arguing only on the morality of the practice. I am not arguing over the utility of animal experimentation. Nor am I attempting to 'handicap' researchers. I'm not arguing against the fact that animal experimentation is an integral part of our scientific progress, but against the notion that it is inherently a 'moral' act. That said, I wish to point out some obvious flaws in my opponent's arguments. flaw 1: Animal experimentation benefits humans and animalsMy opponent has a point in that humans are not necessarily the only ones that benefit from scientific research. But this is still a naive view since the animals that receive benefits are only those that are associated with human interests. Such interests include health of livestock-our source of food-, our pets - our source of intimacy -, and as my opponent points out, inter-species transmission of disease from these animals. This does not escape from the anthropocentric view of the world, which, and I cannot emphasize more, is the stem of the immorality of animal experimentation. For one, what benefits do the rodent species - since it seems rodents are the most widely experimented animals - from our scientific researches? Nothing. Ultimately the lives we save are human lives. The disease we wish to prevent are disease that affect us, whether directly or indirectly. flaw 2. Utilitarianism is a better way to view morality, or as my opponent states, "straight evaluation of lives lost. "This is a very troublesome view of morality. Number of lives cannot be the standard with which we set our morality. Was Hitler any less immoral than Stalin for killing fewer millions of humans? Was the act of dropping the atomic bombs on civilians morally defensible because the prolonging of the war without them would have cost more lives? While these may seem extreme cases, they are just a few of the many absurd arguments that such utilitarianistic morality allows. Let us explore more in this field. A claim made often is that human ambition - or in negative light, greed - is one of the primary sources of conflict and consequent death that has plagued human history. Does this in any way justify the removal of human emotions? Such a notion is explored in the movie Equilibrium, where human emotions are suppressed via chemical ingestion. By my opponent's quote-on-quote "straight evaluation of lives lost," this is a moral act, is it not? The suppression of freedom of emotion in the name of morality is a moral one by my opponent's standards of morality. What next are we to sacrifice in our moral standards by using such "moral math"? To add, such mentality justifies the sacrifice of one group as a moral act for the "greater good. " of another group. Such justifications have time to time demonstrated that it must not be the basis of our moral understanding of this universe. I wish to elucidate on certain points in light of my analysis of my opponent's argument.1. Moral defense using utilitarianism is tacit approval of the immorality of an act. What my opponent fails to distinguish is the distinction between a moral cause, and an immoral act. The two are not mutually exclusive. A moral cause will in its fulfillment entail immoral acts. The French Revolution is a good example. While the cause to bring the ideals of equality, liberty and fraternity by overthrowing the oppressive upper class was a moral cause, the act of murder that the rebels executed upon the royal guards and army was an immoral act. In our case, the cause to eradicate or prevent disease for mankind is the moral cause. Animal experimentation is the immoral act by which humans attempt to make that moral cause come true. What my opponent attempts to do is justify an immoral act by the moral cause that caused it. This does not change the immoral act to a moral one. 2. My opponent's moral defense for animal experimentation is a double-standard brought on by anthropocentrism. As I've demonstrated earlier, the benefits of scientific research is anthropocentric. For example, the movie The Island explores the notion of human clones bred for organ harvesting. This is no different from the creation of oncomice and transgenic pigs. It is in essence the breeding organisms for the enhancement of human health. My opponent would argue that the former is more immoral than the latter. This reveals the hypocrisy of humans to change morality to fit their own needs. When it is done on humans, it is morally wrong since it takes away the rights to life and freedom. When done on animals, anthropocentric utilitarianism steps in and claims since it saves multitudes of lives, it is defensible. Now I will pose the 3 questions that he must answer in the next round1) Do you acknowledge that double moral standards are used for human and animal experimentation?2) Do you believe that "realistically more viable" is a valid defense of morality?3) Do humans carry the right to determine that an animal life is of lesser value than a human life? I eagerly wait for my opponent's answer.