James Hall
Phil2300-Su12
08/03/12
Animal Experimentation
One hears many horror stories of the treatment of animals in many of the big companies all the
time. From the mistreatment of cattle being used to produce milk, to the chickens cooked in the
Kentucky Fried Chicken suppliers warehouse, and even to the animals used as literal lab rats for
cosmetic companies. This essay is going to discuss the positions and reasons why animal
experimentation is immoral and why we have a duty to refrain from using animals as the subjects of
dangerous and cruel testing.
Animal rights play a large role in why testing on animals is unacceptable. While it may be true
that animals do not have the same cognitive functions that we do, this shouldn't exclude them from
having their rights considered. Peter Singer makes this point when he states, "If a being suffers, there
can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the
nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like
suffering-in so far as rough comparisons can be made-of any other being." (Singer, p. 107). It is clear by
this point that if animals suffer as we as humans do, then they have the rights to avoid being put into
the situation where they would be suffering.
The suffering of animals may seem, from a Utilitarian point of view, to be acceptable to the fact
that they benefit many people. Tom Regan though believes otherwise. He states, "An individual's right
not to be harmed can justifiably be overridden only if:
a) we have very good reason to believe that overriding the individual's right by itself will prevent, and
is the only realistic way to prevent, vastly greater harm to other innocent individuals; or
b) we have very good reason to believe that allowing the individual to be harmed is a necessary link in
a chain of events which collectively will prevent vastly greater harm to innocent individuals, and we
have very good reason to believe that this chain of events is the only realistic way to prevent this
vastly greater harm; or
c) we have very good reason to believe that it is only if we override the individual's right that we can
have a reasonable" (Regan, p. 113)
While there is room for debate what a "vastly greater harm" is, it is obvious that the harm caused by the
suffering of the animals has no "greater harm" that it prevents. It seems then that we do not, indeed,
have a "very good reason" for testing anything on animals that have even the slightest chance to cause
them harm.
But even with these rights set, one can still argue that animal cruelty should be avoided. The
Kantian accord finds that the problem with the mistreatment of animals is that, "People who torment
animals will, or are likely to, torment people. It is this spillover effect that makes mistreating animals
wrong. We are not concerned directly with the ill-treatment that the animals themselves receive.
Rather, our concern is that this bodes ill for humankind." (Regan, p. 105) It is clear here that, even
though the treatment of animals is wrong only so much as it directly leads to the harming of human, it is
still an immoral act to do so.
Its true that Humans have an intrinsic value, he states with "Human beings have inherent value
because, logically independently of the interest of others, each individual is the subject of a life that is
better or worse for that individual. Because of the type of value that human beings have, it is wrong (a
sign of disrespect and a violation of rights) to treat humans as if they had value merely as a means (e.g.,
to use humans merely to advance the pleasures of the group). In particular, to harm human beings for
the sake of the profit or pleasure of any group is to violate their right not to be harmed." (Regan, p. 116)
Regan then wonders if the same can be said of animals and he comes to the conclusion that "It can, at
least in the case of those animals who are the subjects of a life that is better or worse for them, logically
independent of whether they are valued by anyone else." (Regan, p. 116)
It is clear from all the evidence presented by, Singer, Regan, and others, that what is being done
to animals right now is not only cruel and degrading, but completely and irrevocably morally
apprehensible and needs to be stopped, or at least put though severe regulations to ensure the proper
treatment of the animals. Pollan said it best when he remarked, "That's right, I respond, for the simple
reason that they're one of us. And all of us have been, and will probably once again be, marginal cases
ourselves. What's more, these people have fathers and mothers, daughters and sons, which makes our
interest in their welfare deeper than our interest in the welfare of even the most brilliant ape. Alas,
none of these arguments evade the charge of speciesism; the racist, too, claims that it's natural to give
special consideration to one's own kind. A utilitarian like Singer would agree, however, that the feelings
of relatives do count for something. Yet the principle of equal consideration of interests demands that,
given the choice between performing a painful medical experiment on a severely retarded orphan and
on a normal ape, we must sacrifice the child. Why? Because the ape has a greater capacity for pain."
(Pollan, part 1, p. 4)
Works Cited
All Animals Are Equal; Peter Singer
An Animal's Place; Michael Pollan
Animal Rights, Human Wrongs; Tom Regan