" Daniel Lyons Phil 100 TR 9:00 February 22, 2012 The Ethics of Medical Testing on Animals

Lyons 1

Biological tests are usually one of three groups: in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro. The New Oxford American Dictionary denes 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 entire organism and as such tests on that organism can efciently 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 subject 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 procedures 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 rst had to choose which ethical theory I thought would most effectively apply to the issue. First was Aristotles 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 rst place. He argues that virtues are dened by virtuous (who in

"

Lyons 2

turn are virtuous because they follow these same virtues) and there for these virtues are self-dening. 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 drastically different from Aristotelian society. Next, I questioned whether Benthams 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 nd a theory that helps us more because to do so they would inevitably have to use the principle of utility to disprove him. But I had a huge problem with Benthams 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 gure out how to apply it to the issue of testing on animals because I could nd 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 Aristotles theory. Next, Kant topples Bentham 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 answer the question of what we already do, but Kant answers the question of what is the right thing to do. Thus Kants 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 qualication, except a good will. (location: 89) There-

"

Lyons 3

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 rst realize the limits of our will. We are inuenced by many things. For example gravity inuences me so that I stay in this chair as I write instead of oating into space. It is not my will that keeps me here for even if I wanted to oat 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 something in a manner that does not hinder its freedom, it is only possible to respect something 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. Dening Logical Beings We must now discern, practically, what deserves respect. To do this we will rst assume 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 tables freedom to not have a glass of water on its head. Clearly this is ridiculous because tables are not living

"

Lyons 4

and are clearly not rational. So, for the time being, we can separate all of the worlds objects into two catagories: rational and irrational beings. Furthermore we can safely assume that non-living beings cannot possibly be rational since it is impossible to use logic if youre dead. Though we will revisit this topic, let us establish a rough denition 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 sacrices that are in direct conict with the desires or inclinations of that being. For example, a reghter fullls his duty to save others from perishing in res even though it requires risking his/her life. Therefore, any evidence of beings that make moral choices despite the sacrice that these choices entail is evidence of rationality. While this may not be proof of rationality it is a step in the right direction. Weve 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 stories of soldiers and police sacricing their lives in order to help other people. This behavior clearly cant 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 entire species of humans are moral it is at least proof that humans have the capability of being moral.

"

Lyons 5 However, I have yet to see animals of any kind ever behave in any way that signied

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 evidence 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 scenarios. 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 desired 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 denition of logic. Furthermore, Ive never seen any animal 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 dont 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 6

gument of sympathy. Admittedly this was the single greatest hurdle I had with accepting Kants arguments. His arguments, while more complete than his competitors did seem to be more heartless. However I nally came upon this realization: even under Kantian ethics, where we only have a duty to respect rational beings, we still cannot hurt animals 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 disrespect 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 actually 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 efcient as possible when pursuing the fulllment of our duties. Now if we apply this principle to the two new duties that we found we nd that if our the scientists 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 fulll this duty even if it means sacrice.

"

Lyons 7 Lets 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 fulll this duty then we must even use methods that inict 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 conduct tests that will kill test subjects. For example, in order to nd cures for incredibly deadly diseases such as anthrax, it is necessary that we intentionally infect a test subject 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 fullling our duty to preserve life. Therefore, we must amend our prior principle of efciency to include this clause: Only in the case of a conict of duties may we prioritize our duties. In that case our duty is to do that which most closely fullls 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 ourselves directly causing pain to others or killing them. We can then sum up the principle of efciency in this statement: we must do absolutely everything possible to fulll our duties so long as it is still ethical.

"

Lyons 8 Next, we need to consider if it is even possible for logical, a priori duties to conict

with each other. Wouldnt 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 Dictionary denes 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 conicting in the same way that a ball thrown threw the air has multiple, conicting 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 inuence 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 conicting 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 followed but in that particular instance one law has greater inuence 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 fullling our duty. Foundation for Practical Application

"

Lyons 9 So the question is how exactly do we conduct medical testing in a way that is still

ethical? Again well assume that nothing can be ethically tested on, and then well rule out what can be ethically tested on. To start off well bring in the table again. Clearly it is ethical to conduct medical tests on a table because it is not even living. Its an object or a thing. Therefore weve established that it is at least possible that some things in this world are ethical to be used in medical tests. Before moving on Id like to divide the entire world into 5 different types of beings. The rst 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 example 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 affected by no other inuence 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 denition. I intentionally chose dogs as an example because unlike many animals they have a secret weapon: theyre cute. This may give them a chance, even against no-good heartless Kantian philosophers. Practical Application

"

Lyons 10 Now that we have divided the world into ve 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 conict 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 cant feel pain, there is no duty to consider how we should limit their pain since they cant feel any. There is however a duty to not kill these beings unless it somehow aids the testing process or is simply impractical to avoid killing. For example it is simply impractical to worry about accidentally killing bugs all the time so in keeping with the efciency 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 conict 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 animals 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 fulll the duty of limiting pain. One more point, by testing on the animals we are also fullling our duty to limit pain to animals because the knowledge that we gain from testing on animals 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 conict of

"

Lyons 11

duties, we must adhere to the one duty that is still there. So medical testing for a product 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 efciency does not apply because it is the duty of the public to limit their own pain. Therefore, these tests are merely to empower the public with knowledge. Duty of Self Respect Now in order to cement these conclusions Id 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 wellknown 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. Anytime 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 ourselves. This is then a good test to see if we are moral. We should conduct medical tests which necessarily require inicting pain, but the moment that we nd pleasure out of inicting this pain we are now immoral. After all a moral being would have no rational reason to enjoy someone elses pain. The Problem of Skepticism

"

Lyons 12 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 theyre actually thinking? We get this question from applying Kants 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 experience the actual truth. Likewise, it is impossible for us to experience the consciousness of someone else. So the only one that we can denitively 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 evidence 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 doesnt 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 its an inevitability that we must follow or else we have abandoned 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 because all of our evidence is pointing in that direction. Though it may not point deni-

"

Lyons 13

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 purposes of testing them so that we may limit pain and preserve life in others including other animals.

"

Lyons 14

Work Cited Aristotle. 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 Metaphysics of Morals. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2007. Print.