Moral Argument Against Vivisection

At the outset let me say that I have no formal qualifications in the field of animals used in research - what I would like to do today is simply share with you my thoughts and the thoughts of others I have come across over many years of interest in the subject.

Whilst there are many strands to this subject I will keep to what I regard as the most important issue - which is the moral questions raised. I say the most important because it seems to me that if it is morally wrong to use animals in research then it would, for example, be wrong regardless of whether animals make good models or whether or not viable alternatives exists.

I will make reference to events and to certain groups of people who are disadvantaged - in doing so please accept I mean no offence and do so only to illustrate a point of view. I take no account of religious beliefs which may be legitimate in a theological debate but which are, I believe, inappropriate for today.

So what is it that makes it acceptable to perform procedures on all other species when we would deem it morally unacceptable to perform those same procedures on humans?
Interestingly, it may be that the times in our history when mankind had no such compunction will provide a clue.

As late as the early 19th century white slave traders were forcibly removing blacks from their homeland, shipping them to all corners of the globe, shackling them and punishing them for minor misdemeanours you could say treating them like animals. Of course the blacks were seen as different, uncivilised, backward and referred to as savages - human but inferior, in a way regarded as sub-human.

If we fast forward to the middle of the last century, concentration camp doctors were experimenting on the Jews, gypsies and other minority groups (read out Daily Mail report and the Dictionary description of Belsen as any place where prisoners are deliberately and with cool calculation reduced to the level of animals)

"It was Traudi's job to tie down the helpless prisoners, often choosen form the best-looking women. She would listen to them screaming while doctors infected them with bacterial cultures, adding splinters of glass and wood for good measure. Flesh was cut to the bone without anaesthetic and wounds left to become gangrenous so the progress of the condition could be observed. Often the prisoners died in unspeakable agony. The results would be reported to eminent professors and Nazi medical advisors, including Hitler's personal doctor. Traudi told her daughter she felt no compassion for the people who suffered, maintaining the operations were carried out for the good of humanity. She described dehumanisation training, in which only the hardest and thickest-skinned recruits graduated with full honours and were posted to the worst camps like Birkenau." Excert from The Daily Mail, March 4th 2004.

- again we see this - the inmates were human but not as important, different, not as good, inferior. It was not uncommon for Dr. Mengales to exhibit on stage those he had performed experiments on - other Officers would have an opportunity to observe and even speak to those unfortunates - even speak kindly to them - but of course never as equals.

In both examples it was necessary to see others as inferior in order for their suffering to be given less importance. It was obvious that suffering was taking place but because those who were inflicting the suffering could convince themselves that those who suffered were in someway different and inferior, then they could reason that the suffering mattered less. I believe this factor is significant when considering the use of animals in research.

I will assume that everyone accepts the evidence that animals have the capacity to suffer. (This is shown in their behaviour when they learn to avoid situations that they would find painful, in their complex nervous systems and that in these nervous systems are found the same types of chemicals which are associated with the transmission and control of pain as in our own).

It is obvious they are different from us but what is it that makes them different - inferior - and not deserving of the same moral protection. Certainly its not physical, we know many animals can run faster, jump higher and are stronger than we are. They will see, hear and smell things that we will remain unaware of. Many animals retain instincts that we have either never had or have long since lost. Infant animals will survive better in their environment than abandoned babies at the same level of development.

No, it is surely intelligence that sets us apart and by any yardstick for measuring intelligence there is no doubt we reign supreme. But is this relevant as to who should suffer. Referring to the moral status of animals, in 1789 the famous philosopher Jeremy Bentham stated, the question is not can they (animals) reason? Nor, can they talk? But can they suffer? This is a profound statement that demonstrates the allocation of moral protection on the basis of intelligence comes from asking the wrong questions. I would add that if a being can suffer then that suffering should be given equal consideration (not equal rights).

I think we should be grateful to Bentham for his clarity of thought for if we were to accept that intelligence is the criteria for who should receive moral protection, it would follow that such protection would be removed from e.g. those unfortunate individuals that are in a vegetative state or are mentally retarded - this is clearly unthinkable.

As Dr. Richard Ryder puts it, if one is to allow experiments on animals that suffer as we do, but not allow these same experiments on humans, it is specism. Put simply, who is and is not to receive moral protection is based purely on species, which is illogical.

To summaries:
The most powerful argument against painful or distressing experiments on animals is the moral one. The evidence is that non-human animals suffer pain and distress in a similar manner to ourselves. Since Darwin, we have known that we are all animals. Merely because an individual comes from another species constitutes no rational grounds for causing it suffering, anymore than does a difference in gender or race. Such discrimination is irrational and morally wrong.

In conclusion a final thought, if animals are sufficiently like us to make experiments meaningful they deserve the same moral protection, if not then this must invalidate the science. I respectfully suggest that you can't
have it both ways.

Two common arguments that are often advanced in an attempt to show moral dilemma.
Firstly, that it is hypocritical to oppose the use of animals in research and still use products that have already been tested on animals. This argument is not only illogical but in itself probably immoral. It makes no sense to deny a benefit to someone or another animal when the suffering has already occurred. The issue is the use of animals to test future products. I know that many scientists would prefer not to use animals.

Animals are, I'm told, expensive, difficult to keep and handle and the results are often unreliable when extrapolated to humans. However, again I'm told, it's the best we have. But are we seriously saying that if animals could not be used advancements in science and medicine would discontinue - that the best and brightest scientists would simply give up and walk away. They wouldn't, they would find other ways.

Secondly, the suggestion that surely it is better for the individual to suffer for the good of the many, as in one dog having a veterinary product tested on it to ensure the safety of thousands of other dogs. On the face of it this seems attractive until it is your dog to save mine or you and your loved ones to save me and mine. Now the prospect does not have such appeal and rightly so because the individual matters, animals don't suffer as species or in thousands, like us they suffer individually and you can't aggregate pain.

Malcolm Phipps
ISPCA
UCD Training Day, March 2004

back to top

back to list