When animals are used for the development of household products and cosmetics they are condemned by

a utilitarian. However, when they are used for a medical experimentation that can lead to cure for a debilitating or
terminal illness, they are acceptable to a utilitarian. Do you agree with this?

If we speak about utilitarianism which is about producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of
people, then sacrificing a few for the sake of the majority can be considered a moral act, especially when we look at it
in the context of act utilitarianism. In this case, medical experiments done with animals can be considered moral
since it can help a lot of people not just in the present but in the future as well. It is acceptable as long as it will truly
lead to a cure or, at the very least, as long as it will be a step closer to finding a cure.
Let’s first look at things through the lenses of act utilitarianism and use the felicific calculus. First, how
intense will the pleasure be if you test on animals? Since the goal of the experiment is to find a cure that can help
millions or maybe even billions of people, the intensity of the pleasure is high. It is quite saddening to think that lives
will be sacrificed but at least it was for a good cause. Next is the duration of the pleasure. The pleasure that may be
felt may last for several decades because people of the future may still use the possible cure of a certain illness for
research or as medicine. Now, since the topic is about experimentation, the certainty of experiencing pleasure is
quite low. Based on what experimentations are, the result will be a complete mystery. Will it work or not? For the
propinquity, the pleasure will occur as soon as the experiment is done and successful. Will it produce another
happiness? It will, so long as it becomes fruitful or, at least, partially successful because it can still be used in the
future as a reference. Is the pleasure pure? As long as the intention is good, then yes, especially if the researcher is
very passionate about helping other people. But for some animal rights activists, the happiness is not pure because
the death of numerous animals will haunt their minds. But now, let’s look at the extent. The animal rights activists and
animals are very affected by this issue but they are fewer compared to those who are ill, passionate when it comes to
seeking cures for incurable diseases, and the future generations. Considering all of these, we can say that testing on
animals for medical purposes is good. On the other hand, if we use rule utilitarianism, we can make it more judicious
as long as the necessary permits are presented by the researchers. That is still considered as rule utilitarianism.
An act’s morality is based on a person’s beliefs and that is made clear in our past lessons. So, we do agree
that if a utilitarian is to decide whether using animals in order to test medicines that can be used as treatments for
illnesses, he or she would say that it is since it will benefit a lot of people. But if a person with a different kind of
thinking is to decide, the resolution will probably be different.