A Rational Defense of Animal Research

Nathan Nobis, Ph.D.

Philosophy Department University of Alabama, Birmingham www.NathanNobis.com

[email protected]

• 3,000-6,000 animals killed every hour of every day by U.S. scientist and those employed by them • Recent review suggests just being in lab is harmful for animals • Video footage of Covance’s labs in Vienna, VA – Are these actions of harming animals morally permissible, or are they wrong?

• Is it wrong to treat

us

these ways, and if so, why?

Us?

• ‘conscious, sentient beings’ – many animals are like us • ‘us’ = ‘humans’ – be careful – Is the suggestion that

anything that is biologically human

is wrong to treat those ways?

• Would imply it is wrong to destroy (living) cells, tissues, organs and embryos/fetuses

Us?

• A being has 'moral rights' only if "rational" or "intelligent" or "autonomous"? • But, severely mentally challenged, senile, seriously demented and babies – all considered to be morally significant 'us' -- have rights, even though not rational, intelligent, autonomous – If they have rights, then basic moral ‘bar’ is set low – Cannot be set at ‘being human’ – cells/organs – Therefore, set at ‘consciousness’ • Ability to feel pleasure and pain • Perspective on world

• What is morally relevant, not species but mental life of individual – Comparable mental lives deserve equal respect and equal consideration and thus, nearly all animal experimentation is wrong.

• This reasoning defended by

many

, criticized by few, philosophers

Recent Objections

•

Why Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research

, 2001 – Defense of animal experimentation

Philosopher R.G. Frey’s essay

• “Justifying Animal Experimentation: The Starting Point” – Animal experimentation vs. human experimentation

Scientist Adrian Morrison

• “human beings stand apart in a moral sense from all other species” – Does not identify morally-relevant characteristics humans have that animals don’t • Therefore, he can’t

rationally

criticize opposing views • “Self preservation” – Doesn’t explain why human experimentation would be wrong • Vivisectors have “God’s blessing”

Biologists Charles Nicholl and Sharon Russell

• “Evolution has endowed us with a need to know as much as we can” • “to refrain from exploring nature in every possible way would be an arrogant rejection of evolutionary forces” – Then why isn’t it arrogant to perform experimentation on humans?

• Purpose of evolution • Since animals act some way, humans can too

Others

• Scientist Jerrold Tannenbaum – Scientists may “befriend” animals • Scientist Stuart Zola – “basic” vs. “applied” animal research – No backup provided • Philosopher Baruch Brody – Special obligations from humans to humans • Also special obligations from humans to animals to discount animal interests – To try to benefit humans, we must inflict pain, suffering and death on animals – More reflection and argument needed

Philosopher H. Tristam Engelhardt

• Dissenter – defends animal rights – “to be skinned” – “transformed into fur coats” – “produce knowledge of interest to humans” – “to be the object of culinary arts” – Little discussion of scientific issues – Remarks scattered

Morrison

• “medicine cannot progress without animal experimentation” – What about clinical and

in vitro

research, computer and mathematical modeling, epidemiology, etc.

Tibor Machan’s

Putting Humans first: Why We Are Nature’s Favorite

• Claim that animals possess moral rights is “a fiction” and “a trick” • Humans can see difference between right and wrong, animals can’t – Therefore humans have rights, animals don’t • However, only

some

these rights humans, not

all

have – Machan’s theory provides no protection for these humans

Tibor Machan’s

Putting Humans first: Why We Are Nature’s Favorite

• Human babies and severely mentally challenged don’t “lack moral agency altogether” – Must consider them as existing “normally, not abnormally” – However it is not true that,

in general

, all features of normal beings are shared by abnormal beings – Therefore, vulnerable humans do not meet Machan’s necessary condition for rights; his defense of the rights of them fails and thereby so does his argument that animals have not moral rights

Tibor Machan’s

Putting Humans first: Why We Are Nature’s Favorite

• “politically incorrect” animals – Morally permissible for us to act like some animals and kill other animals • “Humans are more important, even better, than animals, and we deserve the benefits that exploiting animals can provide” – Strong arguments not given to justify this

Tibor Machan’s

Putting Humans first: Why We Are Nature’s Favorite

• Unanswered rhetorical questions too often take the place of arguments • Arguments not carefully and precisely developed or defended • Position on the use of animals is unclear and ambivalent

Utilitarianism and animal use

• Few advocates of vivisection accept utilitarianism • Calculated indirect harms and opportunity costs that result from funds being directed towards vivisection and not towards others • Nobody has tried to show that some specified amount of vivisection is (likely) indispensable for bringing about the greatest possible overall medical benefits • Nobody has argued that, despite

all

the other research methods available, other methods would be better than animal research for human benefit

Conclusions

• Status quo regarding animal use, especially in scientific research • Carl Cohen fails because his strategy implies that animals actually have rights and humans have none • Reasoning given in favor of some anti animal perspective is faulty because it either depends on false an/or rationally indefensible premises

Conclusions

• Those who harm animals attempt to develop a plausible justification for doing so • It is

likely

morally obligatory that those who use animals in harmful manners cease in their deeds