Daniel Lyons

Phil 100

TR 9:00

February 22, 2012

The Ethics of Medical Testing on Animals

Biological tests are usually one of three groups: in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro. The

New Oxford American Dictionary defines in vivo as “in a living thing”, ex vivo as “out of

the living”, and in vitro as “taking place in a test tube, culture, dish, or elsewhere outside

a living organism”. In vivo testing is effective because it is within the context of the en-

tire organism and as such tests on that organism can efficiently judge whether a product

is safe to use on that animal or not. Often medical companies choose to test on animals

instead of humans because these tests are so dangerous that they will most likely harm

the test subject. In fact there are situations where the test actually requires that the sub-

ject be harmed on purpose in order to learn the lethality of a particular substance. The

question is whether this practice of using animals to test medical products and proce-

dures is ethical, even if it means harming or killing the animals. I believe that it is ethical

to test on animals in any way so long as the animals are not tortured or otherwise

treated in a disrespectful manner.

Choosing an Ethical Theory

To discern this I first had to choose which ethical theory I thought would most effec-

tively apply to the issue. First was Aristotleʼs virtue ethics. While it could be argued that

harming animals is unvirtuous this hardly seemed to apply because of where Aristotle

found his virtues in the first place. He argues that virtues are defined by virtuous (who in

" Lyons 1

turn are virtuous because they follow these same virtues) and there for these virtues are

self-defining. Therefore unfortunately his theories hardly seem to apply to anything more

than a typical 4th century B.C. Greek city state. Obviously our current society is drasti-

cally different from Aristotelian society.

Next, I questioned whether Benthamʼs utilitarian outlook could possibly apply. His

theory, that “the good” is pleasure and the absence of pain, seemed logical enough.

Furthermore he had a very strong argument which was that no one could possibly find a

theory that helps us more because to do so they would inevitably have to use the prin-

ciple of utility to disprove him. But I had a huge problem with Benthamʼs theory: it could

not be universalized. I found no reason why I had any obligation to care for the pleasure

or pain of anyone else. For this reason I could not figure out how to apply it to the issue

of testing on animals because I could find no compelling argument that we had a duty to

help out anyone other than ourselves.

Kant, however, answered these questions for me. First of all his theory is timeless

and applies to any society in any time, unlike Aristotleʼs theory. Next, Kant topples Ben-

tham with an even better argument: just because everyone does follow the principle of

utility does not mean that we ought to live in this way. Both Bentham and Aristotle an-

swer the question of what we already do, but Kant answers the question of what is the

right thing to do. Thus Kantʼs theory is the only applicable philosophy from these

choices.

The Basics of Kant

First Kant states that “Nothing can possibly conceived in the world, or even out of it,

which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will.” (location: 89) There-

" Lyons 2

fore we have an obligation to treat this good will as an end in itself, in other words, with

respect. Respect is to treat something in a manner that does not hinder its freedom.

Freedom is the ability to make an autonomous choice. To understand this, we must first

realize the limits of our will. We are influenced by many things. For example gravity in-

fluences me so that I stay in this chair as I write instead of floating into space. It is not

my will that keeps me here for even if I wanted to float away I have no way to do so. Our

will is further limited by our desires and inclinations. If I were to go to a restaurant I

would inevitably “choose” whichever dish offered me the most pleasure (in the principle

of utility). So in fact I did not pick my dish but it in fact “picked” me because it was the

dish that best met my desires. So there is really only one way to have a free will. That is

to use logic to arrive at the best choice. Logic will lead you to only one best solution but

by using logic we choose to neglect our desires and inclinations to choose what we

ought to will. Back to the subject of respect. Since respect is that which treats some-

thing in a manner that does not hinder its freedom, it is only possible to respect some-

thing that has freedom. After all how could you possibly affect the freedom of something

else if it has none? Since logic is the only path to a free choice, only rational beings can

possibly be free.

Defining “Logical Beings”

We must now discern, practically, what deserves respect. To do this we will first as-

sume that everything deserves respect and rule out all the ridiculous answers. Let us

start with tables. If I had a duty to respect tables then it would be disrespectful to place a

glass of water on a table because then I would be limiting the tableʼs freedom to not

have a glass of water on its head. Clearly this is ridiculous because tables are not living

" Lyons 3

and are clearly not rational. So, for the time being, we can separate all of the worldʼs ob-

jects into two catagories: rational and irrational beings. Furthermore we can safely as-

sume that non-living beings cannot possibly be rational since it is impossible to use

logic if youʼre dead.

Though we will revisit this topic, let us establish a rough definition of which beings in

our world are rational and which are irrational. First, we already established that rational

beings have freedom through logic which allows them to make choices independent of

their desires or inclinations. Through this we can conclude that rational beings are also

the only beings that are capable of making moral choices. Furthermore, these moral

choices often involve sacrifices that are in direct conflict with the desires or inclinations

of that being. For example, a firefighter fulfills his duty to save others from perishing in

fires even though it requires risking his/her life. Therefore, any evidence of beings that

make moral choices despite the sacrifice that these choices entail is evidence of ration-

ality. While this may not be proof of rationality it is a step in the right direction.

Weʼve already established that non-living beings cannot be rational. We must now

test which living beings are rational and which are not. Now I have found evidence that

humans are capable of being moral and are therefore rational. Every day we hear sto-

ries of soldiers and police sacrificing their lives in order to help other people. This be-

havior clearly canʼt be fueled by utility because they are in no way helping themselves

and are in fact causing pain to themselves. While this is by no means proof that the en-

tire species of humans are moral it is at least proof that humans have the capability of

being moral.

" Lyons 4

However, I have yet to see animals of any kind ever behave in any way that signified

that they were motivated not by their desires or inclinations but instead by their duty.

Therefore I can safely assume that animals are not moral. But I do not merely have evi-

dence that animals are not likely to be rational, I also have evidence that animals are

quite likely to be irrational. Most animals are unable to understand math or science in

any way as evidenced by their inability to create technology of any kind. I have not seen

any evidence that animals are able to use reason to adapt their knowledge to new sce-

narios. Only the highest animals are able to create tools that adapt to their task and

even this is shoddy evidence of logic since it might just as well be a sort of following of

stimulus response. These animals could simply be trying anything they can to get

pleasure until they reach what appears to be an elegant solution. Logic, on the other

hand, is the ability to use empirical data from trials, to come up with a new plan based

on reasoning, and then from that reasoning actually be able to predict whether the de-

sired effect will happen. While the two may look similar, and even at times reach the

same result they are fundamentally different. I have never seen any animal behave in a

way that is consistent with that definition of logic. Furthermore, Iʼve never seen any ani-

mal show signs of reasoning that is anywhere near as advanced as is necessary to

make a moral choice. Therefore we can reasonably assume that animals, (at the very

least the lower ones) are either irrational or not rational enough to be moral.

The Two Duties

Now, the next question comes from our gut (as many do): “Even though animals are

not rational donʼt they still deserve respect?” The usual reasoning for this question is

that animals 1) are living and 2) have the ability to feel pain. In other words this is an ar-

" Lyons 5

gument of sympathy. Admittedly this was the single greatest hurdle I had with accepting

Kantʼs arguments. His arguments, while more complete than his competitors did seem

to be more heartless. However I finally came upon this realization: even under Kantian

ethics, where we only have a duty to respect rational beings, we still cannot hurt ani-

mals because we cannot universalize a duty that demands hurting animals. If it were

our duty to hurt animals then we would be held by duty to hurt the entire kingdom of

animals, to which we as humans also belong. To hurt other humans would be to disre-

spect them which would therefore violate our duty to not treat rational beings as an end

in itself. Therefore even though animals may not be rational we still have a duty to not

hurt or kill them.

Thus we can conclude that we have two new duties: to limit pain and to preserve life.

Furthermore this duty applies to all beings which are either capable of feeling pain or

are living. Before I move on I must move on to a principle of all duties: partial obedience

is disobedience. In other words, if we only partially obey our duties then we are not ac-

tually obeying our duties. Therefore, we can conclude that with respect to any duty, we

must not only follow our duty but do it to the absolute best of our ability. In other words

we must be as efficient as possible when pursuing the fulfillment of our duties. Now if

we apply this principle to the two new duties that we found we find that if our the scien-

tists of our society do not do medical testing then they are actually not following their

duty. Furthermore they do not have the luxury to be lazy about the method in which they

pursue this duty. They must make every possible effort to fulfill this duty even if it means

sacrifice.

" Lyons 6

Letʼs pause for a moment. It does appear that we are heading in the direction of Utili-

tarianism and for the most part that is true. But it is only Utilitarianism so long as it is

applied to non-rational beings but once rational beings are involved we must once again

honor our duty to treat them as an end in itself.

Now let us continue. If in fact we are to do everything in our ability to fulfill this duty

then we must even use methods that inflict pain in others. While it does go against our

duty to limit pain it is at the same time consistent with our duty to limit pain because it is

necessary to create medicine that limits or prevents future pain. The same applies with

death. There are certain medicines that can only be discovered if we are willing to con-

duct tests that will kill test subjects. For example, in order to find cures for incredibly

deadly diseases such as anthrax, it is necessary that we intentionally infect a test sub-

ject with this very disease so that we may gain empirical evidence through which to

make an antidote. By infecting the test subject to the bacteria we are essentially giving it

a death sentence but without this evidence it is impossible to make the antidote and we

are only partially fulfilling our duty to preserve life.

Therefore, we must amend our prior principle of efficiency to include this clause:

Only in the case of a conflict of duties may we prioritize our duties. In that case our duty

is to do that which most closely fulfills the greatest number of duties. Now we follow a

narrow path where on one side we are in danger of allowing disease to ravage society

and thus allow pain and death to others, but on the other side we are in danger of our-

selves directly causing pain to others or killing them. We can then sum up the principle

of efficiency in this statement: we must do absolutely everything possible to fulfill our

duties so long as it is still ethical.

" Lyons 7

Next, we need to consider if it is even possible for logical, a priori duties to conflict

with each other. Wouldnʼt that mean that neither duty is infallible. If that is the case then

neither one can truly be a duty, right? Not necessarily. The New American Oxford Dic-

tionary defines duty as “a moral or legal obligation.” But since the duty to limit pain, and

promote life come from the categorical imperative, it must be a priori. Thus, neither duty

can contradict the other. If this was the case then at least one of the duties could not

possibly be a duty. In other words, it is impossible to follow two contradictory duties.

But these duties are not contradictory. They are merely conflicting in the same way

that a ball thrown threw the air has multiple, conflicting forces acted upon it. For one, it

has momentum to maintain, then it must also adhere to gravity, lastly it must follow the

pull of wind resistance. Yet, still the ball is able to follow the influence of not just one

force but all of the forces at the same time. What this creates is a curved path. This path

is perfect. If this ball deviated from this curved path by the tiniest fraction of an inch then

it would cease to follow the laws of motion. In the same way we have ethical laws that

we must follow. At times, these laws will push us in conflicting directions, yet it is our

duty to respect not just one but every duty. At times it may appear that we are following

one duty more than another, in the same way that a ball seems to ignore the law of

momentum, and only adhere to the law of gravity. In reality, both laws continue to be fol-

lowed but in that particular instance one law has greater influence than the others. Just

like the ball there is a correct path that must be followed absolutely. If we stray from that

path in even the slightest way then we are not fulfilling our duty.

Foundation for Practical Application

" Lyons 8

So the question is how exactly do we conduct medical testing in a way that is still

ethical? Again weʼll assume that nothing can be ethically tested on, and then weʼll rule

out what can be ethically tested on. To start off weʼll bring in the table again. Clearly it is

ethical to conduct medical tests on a table because it is not even living. Itʼs an object or

a thing. Therefore weʼve established that it is at least possible that some things in this

world are ethical to be used in medical tests.

Before moving on Iʼd like to divide the entire world into 5 different types of beings.

The first is non-living things (for example tables), then living things that are incapable of

feeling (for example amoebas), then living things that are capable of feeling (for exam-

ple dogs), then living beings that are capable of feeling and are also rational (partially

rational beings)(for example humans), then living, rational beings who are not subject to

desires or inclinations of any kind (purely rational beings). The second and third group

can easily be divided by those that have a central nervous system and those that do not

since science has taught us that the central nervous system is our gateway to the

senses and without it we can feel neither pleasure nor pain. Rational beings have been

split into two groups: partially rational, and purely rational. A purely rational being is af-

fected by no other influence than its own free will. Another name for such a being is a

god, for if such a being does in fact exist then he/she would be a god by definition. I in-

tentionally chose dogs as an example because unlike many animals they have a secret

weapon: theyʼre cute. This may give them a chance, even against no-good heartless

Kantian philosophers.

Practical Application

" Lyons 9

Now that we have divided the world into five groups, here are a few things to con-

sider when deciding what is and is not ethical when it comes to medical testing. First we

already established that non-living beings can always be used since this is not in conflict

with any other duty. Next, rational beings can never be used unless they freely choose

to be used. In such a case it would not limit their freedom to use them since they freely

chose to be test subjects. Next, in beings that live but canʼt feel pain, there is no duty to

consider how we should limit their pain since they canʼt feel any. There is however a

duty to not kill these beings unless it somehow aids the testing process or is simply im-

practical to avoid killing. For example it is simply impractical to worry about accidentally

killing bugs all the time so in keeping with the efficiency principle we must follow this

duty “to the best of our ability”.

Then, we have irrational beings that are both living and able to feel pain. With these

beings we must observe both duties. However sometimes these duties are in conflict

with each other. For example, there are times when an animal may be in incredible pain

and yet there is no way to limit that animalʼs pain other than to kill it. In such a case we

must euthanize the animal so that it may no longer be in pain. This is how we fulfill the

duty of limiting pain. One more point, by testing on the animals we are also fulfilling our

duty to limit pain to animals because the knowledge that we gain from testing on ani-

mals not only helps humans but also animals.

Next, we must consider the potential of the tests that we are administering. If these

tests are merely for fun or to test products that in no way limit pain or preserve life then

we are no longer bound by duty to run these tests. But we are still bound by duty to not

run these tests because it causes pain or death. Since there is no longer a conflict of

" Lyons 10

duties, we must adhere to the one duty that is still there. So medical testing for a prod-

uct such as cosmetics is not ethical unless it is done in a way that causes no pain or

death to test subjects.

Lastly we must consider the potential of tests to ensure product safety (thus limiting

pain or death). Now, product safety is only necessary to consider in products that are

necessary for life. After all, any optional products can merely be avoided for their risks.

However, there is a duty to make these risks known to limit pain but the principle of effi-

ciency does not apply because it is the duty of the public to limit their own pain. There-

fore, these tests are merely to empower the public with knowledge.

Duty of Self Respect

Now in order to cement these conclusions Iʼd like to bring up one more duty: we

must never torture any being whether rational or irrational. While we already knew this

because of the duty to limit pain, there is yet another reason why this is true. It is a well-

known fact that many serial-killers started off torturing animals for pleasure. Therefore

we know that torturing animals produces a tendency to be immoral in the future. Any-

time we produce such a tendency we are in fact limiting our own freedom to be moral

beings and are therefore disrespecting ourselves which in itself is immoral. Therefore

torture is wrong not because it disrespects the animal but because it disrespects our-

selves. This is then a good test to see if we are moral. We should conduct medical tests

which necessarily require inflicting pain, but the moment that we find pleasure out of in-

flicting this pain we are now immoral. After all a moral being would have no rational rea-

son to enjoy someone elseʼs pain.

The Problem of Skepticism

" Lyons 11

Finally, there is one huge hurdle that I have intentionally saved until the end. How

can we possibly determine what is and is not a rational being if we can only perceive

what behavior they have and not what theyʼre actually thinking? We get this question

from applying Kantʼs concept of appearance. Kant claims that we are only able to ever

experience the appearance of something but it is actually impossible for us to experi-

ence the actual truth. Likewise, it is impossible for us to experience the consciousness

of someone else. So the only one that we can definitively prove is rational is ourselves.

(Kant may have reservations about this idea but any arguments he brings up would

have to be rational arguments thus proving his rationality to himself.) Therefore torturing

animals is still wrong because it is disrespect to ourselves.

To answer the prior question, however, I say this: In the absence of absolute evi-

dence we must rely on the next logical choice which is partial evidence. The only time

this may not be so is when such partial evidence is proven to be deemed unreliable.

Then I ask you this question, do we really have access to absolute evidence? Can you

think of a single piece of empirical data that doesnʼt require at least one assumption?

Therefore I say we can never truly understand anything based on absolute evidence

because we lack absolute senses. Now, it is not that this is a rule or a duty that we must

follow but instead that itʼs an inevitability that we must follow or else we have aban-

doned logic entirely. But if we abandon logic then we lose all hope to ever being moral

beings. Therefore, absolute skepticism is in fact immoral.

Conclusion

So my conclusion stands, we must assume that animals are irrational beings be-

cause all of our evidence is pointing in that direction. Though it may not point defini-

" Lyons 12

tively, it would be immoral to ignore the evidence altogether. Thus, if animals are in fact

irrational then we have no duty to treat them as an end in themselves. We are free to

use animals as we please so long as our actions do not disrespect ourselves or any

other rational beings. Furthermore, we actually have a duty to use them for the pur-

poses of testing them so that we may limit pain and preserve life in others including

other animals.

" Lyons 13

Work CitedAristotle. Nichomachean Ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub Co, 2007. Print.Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Mineola,

NY: Dover Publications, 2007. Print."Ethics and Alternatives for Animal Use in Research and Teaching." Academic Health

Center - University of Minnesota. Web. 12 Apr. 2011. <http://www.ahc.umn.edu/rar/ethics.html>.

Kant, Immanuel, and Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. Fundamental Principles of the Meta-physics of Morals. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2007. Print.

" Lyons 14