Using animals for research is an example of a speciesist anthropocentrism philosophical orientation. All living organisms have evolved a self-preservation instinct. Humans use animals in research as a means to an end, disregarding their right to life without being tested on as a means to an end. The reason we use animals for this purpose is because we place a higher value on our own existence and life than those of the animals being tested on.
Certain ethical factors are important like the ability to experience pain, sentience, the ability to foresee the future, the capacity of selfhood and higher level consciousness. Certain animals or humans that do not possess high levels of functioning are prohibited from being tested on because they still hold certain rights or capacities that would disproportionately bring suffering to them, disregard a respect for higher life forms and violate rights.
The use of mice and rats can be justified because of the neurological similarities between humans and them. They can be bred very easily and are low in cognitive functioning or the properties listed above like sentience.
We can argue the anthropocentric position by stating that the quality of life for a mouse or rat is disproportionately lower than that of a human. Rats and mice do not have the same quality of consciousness that humans do in the context of the meaning of a life. We decided that it is worth testing on these animals because it will increase the quality of human life even though it violates the right these animals have not to be tested on.
One could also argue that the small amount of life these lab animals have would not even occur if they were not bred for testing. They exist at all because we needed them for testing.
If this is true, is it worth being alive for a period if we will suffer greatly at the end?
The minimization of suffering for these animals is still important. There is no point to creating needless suffering without some justification for the greater good of humanity. It is important to know that we impose a dichotomy on the value of our lives over these other beings against their will and capacity of agency.
In the future, if A.I. has the capacity for sentience, it would be unethical to create those beings if they were stuck in perpetual forms of suffering. Thomas Mitzinger discusses the ethics of these kinds of beings in his book, Being No One: The Self Model Theory of Subjectivity. These hypothetical A.I. beings could be created into an unimaginable state of suffering that a human being could never experience. We ought not create them.
Similarly, breeding animals for testing has the ethical proportional duty of a mitigated form of non-maleficence. We cannot say we will do ‘no’ harm but we can limit the harm being done for the principle of beneficence, the good that we are doing.
These animals are the product of the scientists that breed them for a specific purpose no sentient being would volitionally agree to. We have an obligation to justify why it is worth the suffering imposed on them and take care to limit any unnecessary suffering.
If these considerations are understood and taken seriously, it is acceptable to use animals for testing.
Comments