The Debate Over Animal Experimentation -continued

The last attitude held by people is the animal liberation attitude. These people believe that animals should not be put to work or to produce for the benefit of humans in any way. They believe that we should try to eliminate all types of animal use and abuse. Some animal liberation supporters will not keep pets because they view it as a form of slavery. People holding the animal liberation attitude openly call for animal liberation and feel that this can only be achieved by a complete restructuring of society’s economic base and property rights. Animal liberation supporters include underground groups whose tactics include illegal actions such as harassment, destruction of property, removal of experimental or other animals considered to be suffering, and violence. Like the animal rights supporters, this group is divided into those people working for the regulation of certain activities and those people who want the activities banned. These people are also willing to give up the results of medical research and production involving animals. Animal liberation supporters feel that we should avoid killing animals at all costs, and believe that their cause is so noble that it justifies breaking the law.

Supporters of animal experimentation strongly believe that animals do not have rights. Carl Cohen, a strong believer in animal experimentation believes that because animals lack the capacity for free moral judgment, they have no rights. He recognizes that there are similarities between human communities and some animal communities, but believes that moral capacity is the determining factor in the possession of rights. Cohen does feel that humans have a responsibility to treat animals humanely, however he makes a clear distinction between the idea of treating animals humanely and as humans.[iii]

Another supporter of animal experimentation, Edwin Locke, believes that rights depend on one’s ability to think. Because animals do not survive by rational thought, but by instinct instead, they do not have rights. According to Locke, rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice.[iv]

Animal experimentation has contributed to the growth of society in many ways. There are two main reasons as to why animal research needs to continue. First, despite great advances in science and technology, animals still cannot be replaced completely by non-animal methods. Secondly, despite great advances in medicine, there are still all too many serious conditions that we cannot yet cure or treat, such as AIDS and Cancer. Without animal research, doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia. Also, without animal research, 60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stoke or kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood pressure, and polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and adults this year.[v]

Advocates of animal experimentation actually believe that it makes no sense to sacrifice future human health and well being by not using animals in research. They feel t hat it would actually be immoral and selfish to put an end to animal experimentation, given the harm that future generations could face if the medical research on animals was halted. 

Animal rights supporters believe that an animal’s right to live free of suffering is just as important as a human’s right. They feel that it is irrational to grant rights to humans but deny them to animals. Just because animals look and act differently than us does not mean that we have the right to inflict pain on them for our own benefit. Several years ago a group of scientists came up with a list of criteria by which to judge the ability to feel pain. These criteria included biological similarities nerve and brain structure, and behavioral responses to possibly noxious stimuli. The scientists used these criteria to test the similarities between human and animal abilities to feel pain. The results of the tests proved that mammals suffer pain in almost the same degree that humans do, birds are also very similar to humans in their feelings of pain, but feel slightly less than mammals. Fish scored low on the tests, so it is probable that they suffer pain, just not to the degree that humans, mammals and birds do. Insects failed almost all of the tests, so it is unlikely that they feel pain.

Just as there are similarities in animals’ and humans’ ability to feel pain, there are also similarities in other sensations and mental abilities. Scientists have found no fundamental difference between humans and animals. It is therefore illogical to believe in a morality that treats animals and humans in different ways. 

This doesn’t mean that animals should be granted every human right. Every human isn‘t even granted every human right. However, we need to recognize that animals do have rights, specifically, the rights to life, liberty, and freedom from torture. The most common argument for denying animals these rights is a difference in the level of intelligence between humans and other animals. However, this is a faulty argument. 

The first fault in this argument is that all humans are not smarter than all nonhumans. A test on a gorilla proved that it had the equivalent of and IQ of 80. Mentally retarded people, who are also given rights, have IQ’s lower than that, therefore the animals should be given rights also. The second fault in this intelligence argument is that intelligence is not relevant to the rights in question. When taking the right to not be tortured into consideration, people of all different intelligent levels have this right. When being tortured, people of all different intelligent levels will feel the pain of the torture in the same manner. Therefore, why should humans believe that an animal would feel that pain in a different manner than another human. 

Animal Experimentation Continued...