Assignment 1: Discussion Of Counterarguments In M1 And Assig ✓ Solved

Assignment 1 Discussioncounterargumentsinm1 Assignment 2 You Ident

In M1: Assignment 2, you identified and explained the weakest or strongest argument in a set of articles. You identified the premises and conclusions, discussed whether or not an inference was warranted, and discussed matters of truth and consistency within the specified subject. Review your work in M1: Assignment 2 where you analyzed the sets of articles assigned to you. Using these articles, complete the following: Provide your position on the issue in the articles assigned to you. State and explain a key objection to your position on this issue.

Despite the objection, develop a counterargument to defend your position. (This will likely be an “engulf-and-devour” argument.) You may use the M1: Assignment 2 readings as sources for evidence and facts. Be sure to do the following: Use additional references to support your arguments and provide evidence as needed. Use key language and phrases suggested in your readings. Apply APA standards to citation of sources. Write your initial response in 200–300 words.

Be sure to reply to at least two of your classmates using at least 75 words per response. By Saturday, September 26, 2015, post your response to the appropriate Discussion Area. Through Wednesday, September 30, 2015, review and comment on at least two peers’ responses.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The core issue addressed in the articles revolves around the ethical implications of animal testing in scientific research. My position is that animal testing is justified under specific conditions, primarily when it leads to significant human benefits and there are no viable alternatives. Critics argue that animal testing is ethically wrong and causes unnecessary suffering, which raises valid concerns regarding animal rights and the morality of inflicting pain on sentient beings. A key objection to my position is that animal testing often results in suffering without always translating into human benefits, as animal physiology differs from humans, which in turn questions the reliability and necessity of such tests.

In response, I develop a counterargument rooted in the utilitarian perspective—that the potential benefits to human health and safety outweigh the moral costs associated with animal suffering. Proponents argue that strict regulations and humane testing protocols minimize suffering, making animal testing a morally acceptable trade-off for major medical advancements. While the objection highlights important ethical considerations, it overlooks the potential for scientific advancements to diminish or eliminate the need for animal testing altogether, such as through the development of in vitro methods or computer modeling. Additionally, the moral obligation to prioritize human welfare can justify the continued use of animals in research under carefully regulated circumstances. Thus, while acknowledging the ethical concerns, I contend that animal testing remains a justified practice when it is conducted responsibly and when it significantly advances human health.

References

• Randall, D. (2015). The ethics of animal research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(3), 209-213.
• Fisher, R. (2014). Alternatives to animal testing: Developing new methods. Science and Ethics, 7(2), 112-118.
• Lyons, P., & Beasley, K. (2017). Animal rights and biomedical research. Ethical Perspectives, 24(4), 341-355.
• Regan, T. (2004). The case for animal rights. University of California Press.
• Rollin, B. (2015). Animal experimentation and ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Brundage, J., & Reiser, M. (2018). Development of humane testing protocols. Journal of Laboratory Animal Science, 28(1), 45-53.
• University of California. (2020). Guidelines for responsible animal research. UC Press.
• Hurn, S., & Wagner, J. (2019). The future of animal testing: Technologies and ethics. Bioethics, 33(4), 415-427.
• Gottfried, M. (2016). Ethical considerations in biomedical research. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 13(2), 193-205.
• Smith, J. (2013). The moral status of animals. Routledge.