Animal Research

[Mermade]

OP, You obviously have been reading Animal Liberation by Peter Singer or you should. He was recommended by another poster. The arguments that you are defending here are included there.

However, arguments against causing suffering to animals for trivial purposes is not new and Singer's position is a consequence of his commitment to utilitarianism. In fact, long before Singer Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), often called the father of utilitarianism, wrote:

"The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?"


To get back to Singer...He actually addresses the mouse vs. human question directly and spells out himself how we can distinguish an adult human being from a mouse...

"[W]e could still hold, for instance, that it is worse to kill a normal adult human, with a capacity for self-awareness and the ability to plan for the future and have meaningful relations with others, than it is to kill a mouse, which presumably does not share all of these characteristics; or we might appeal to the close family and other personal ties that humans have but mice do not have to the same degree; or we might think that it is the consequences for other humans, who will be put in fear for their own lives, that makes the crucial difference; or we might think it is some combination of these factors, or other factors altogether..."

Even on Singer's account there are reasons to distinguish the interest of some humans from some animals. On the other hand he goes on to say,

"Whatever criteria we choose, however, we will have to admit that they do not follow precisely the boundary of our own species."

On his account it will turn out that if it is o.k. to test on some animals than it is o.k. to test on some humans that have the same cognitive capacity and ability to experience pleasure/pain. The important factor will be whether the utilites are the same in each case.

Singer argues that sometimes infanticide is morally acceptable, as is euthanasia under certain circumstances, human testing also could be recommended...many of these views are highly controversial. (By the way, Rethinking Life and Death by Peter Singer is also interesting reading.) At any rate, even Peter Singer would probably not advocate testing on healthy newborn babies. It simply wouldn't advance the greatest utility. Recall that healthy human babies have significant potential to contribute significantly to future utility. Therefore comparing adult rats to healthy newborns is not an even exchange even to radically consistent utilitarians such as Singer. Whether he would recommend testing on severly disabled newborns is another question. However, again there would be severe disutility to other fully functioning human adults.

Interestingly and more controversially, there is probably less difficulty in justifying infanticide for mentally disabled infants on Peter Singer's account than there would be for experimental testing. That is because what is morally relevant to the utilitarian is pleasure/suffering and if the testing involved great suffering to the animal (be it human or otherwise) there would have to be great utility to overcome the disutility to the animal and to others.

I want to make it clear that I'm NOT a utilitarian and do not support Singer's positions on certain matters. As was mentioned before this is a pretty standard discussion for an introductory philosophy course. I thought it may be helpful to add some background. Perhaps someone might find it of interest.