Subjectivism theory asserts that any kind of moral judgement is just one’s own expression of his or her personal opinion on the event or matter at hand. It emphasizes that moral view only express beliefs concerning facts. The reports or beliefs express an individual’s subjective state of mind. As such, the beliefs can be false or true in correspondence to the subjective state of mind at that time. Therefore, a moral judgement is considered true only if it accurately corresponds to an individual’s subjective state of mind. Similarly, a moral judgement is considered false if it inaccurately correspond to the individual’s subjective state of mind. This, therefore, means that there are moral facts which are mind dependent and relate to a particular subjective mind state. For a statement to be viewed as morally right, it must be approved by the person of great interest with a distinct perception (Wiggins & David 20).
As a subjectivist, animal experimentation is legally and extremely moral as far as subjectivism theory is concerned. It provides an alternative to testing when viewed ethically. This is because generally, people would consider it unethical to subject humans to invasive experiments which in most cases involve death. The human lives should not be put in danger when experimenting on potential toxicity or side effects of different medicines. Also, genetic manipulation tests are well monitored when done on animals first to establish their effects before carrying them out on actual humans.
From a different perspective, the animal experimentation is beneficial both ethically and medically to the animals too. The vaccines that have occasionally been conducted on the animals have resulted into curing of serious animal infections. These infections include anthrax, infectious hepatitis, feline leukemia, canine parvovirus and rabies. Most importantly, the vivisection test helped protect endangered species for instance, the black-footed ferret from being extinct (Wiggins & David 27).