A Rational Defense of Animal Research

1
A Rational Defense of Animal Research

• Nathan Nobis, Ph.D.
• Philosophy Department
• University of Alabama, Birmingham
• www.NathanNobis.com
• aphilosopher_at_gmail.com

2

• 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 Covances 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?

3
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

4
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

5

• 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

6
Recent Objections

• Why Experimentation Matters The Use of Animals
  in Medical Research, 2001
• Defense of animal experimentation

7
Philosopher R.G. Freys essay

• Justifying Animal Experimentation The Starting
  Point
• Animal experimentation vs. human experimentation

8
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 dont
• Therefore, he cant rationally criticize opposing
  views
• Self preservation
• Doesnt explain why human experimentation would
  be wrong
• Vivisectors have Gods blessing

9
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 isnt it arrogant to perform
  experimentation on humans?
• Purpose of evolution
• Since animals act some way, humans can too

10
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

11
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

12
Morrison

• medicine cannot progress without animal
  experimentation
• What about clinical and in vitro research,
  computer and mathematical modeling, epidemiology,
  etc.

13
Tibor Machans Putting Humans first Why We Are
Natures Favorite

• Claim that animals possess moral rights is a
  fiction and a trick
• Humans can see difference between right and
  wrong, animals cant
• Therefore humans have rights, animals dont
• However, only some humans, not all have these
  rights
• Machans theory provides no protection for these
  humans

14
Tibor Machans Putting Humans first Why We Are
Natures Favorite

• Human babies and severely mentally challenged
  dont 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 Machans
  necessary condition for rights his defense of
  the rights of them fails and thereby so does his
  argument that animals have not moral rights

15
Tibor Machans Putting Humans first Why We Are
Natures 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

16
Tibor Machans Putting Humans first Why We Are
Natures 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

17
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

18
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

19
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