Anda di halaman 1dari 7

JACKSON 1

Michael W. Jackson

A02-92-6779

Warren 11B

17 March 2000

Animal Experimentation: Survival of the Fittest

The progressive nature of humanity has brought itself to a crossroads. The

dilemma that humanity faces today concerns the extent of moral consideration.

The question is then posed: should animals receive consideration equal to that of

humanity and with, this equal consideration should practices such as animal

experimentation and factory farming be stopped? This decision, however, fails to

acknowledge the basic idea of "survival of the fittest" and the benefits of animal

experimentation. The survival of the species is the direct concern of all animals, be

it a conscious or subconscious directive. Humanity, however, in its desire to be

morally progressive wishes to elevate itself above the other animals and in turn

disregard the natural law of survival. With this regard a minority of the population

feel that the benefits of animal experimentation in no way outweigh the pain and

suffering incurred by the lab animals. Though the loss of animal life is terrible, the

loss of millions, thousands or even one human life is more deplorable if science and

knowledge can prevent it.

Animal experimentation can bring great advancements in medical science

and furthermore in the survival of the human race. Parkinson's disease is a

disabling infliction that causes tremors and mental impairment which effects over

one million people in the United States. The treatment for Parkinson's until 1989
JACKSON 2

was L-dopa, which was unable to stop the advancement of the disease and could

increase the severity of the tremors. With the aide of animal experimentation a new

drug has been approved called deprenyl which slows the progression of

Parkinson's disease (Langley 50). The field of animal experimentation has led to

advances in the continuation of human life and is a significant necessity to the

continued survival of man. It is unfortunate that any being had to suffer in the name

of medicine, but in the greater scheme of things, these animals have provided a

great service to humanity.

Animal experimentation does however have its weaknesses and it is clear

that one needs to maintain concern with unwarranted experimentation. The classic

example is cosmetic research. Though the industry states that the research is only

for product safety concerns many find this research frivolous. The occurrence of

cosmetic testing has decreased significantly in recent years (87%) due to the

negative press associated with such endeavors (MRMC 1). A second area of

useless experimentation occurred with reference to the link between smoking and

lung cancer. The link between lung cancer and smoking was observed in humans

and it was decided to refer these findings to the field of animal experimentation.

When the experiment was then conducted with animal subjects the link was not

evident. Because the laboratory did not yield conclusive results the move to

educate humans about the harmful effects of smoking was delayed many years (2).

This is often the case with carcinogenic compounds and animal models that cannot

reproduce the human reaction and in turn wounds the progression of science.

These examples of frivolous animal experimentation are not supported today.


JACKSON 3

These examples should however not tarnish the beneficial research produced

through animal experimentation.

The foremost supporter of equal consideration of animals is Peter Singer.

Singer uses the Utilitarian approach to the world to dictate a need to extend equal

consideration to animals on the basis of suffering. The principle behind this claim is

that in the Utilitarian approach to life, the goals of society should be to promote the

greatest pleasure or cause the least pain (Rachels 103). Based upon the structure

of a utilitarian society Singer feels that the ability to suffer leads to equal

consideration of animals. Singer bases his argument on the fact that animals can

feel pain and suffer equal to that of humans. The Singer approach is probably the

most significant form of the debate over the rights of animals. The focus of the

debate concerns itself with the conflicting ideas that one either uses animals for

benefit or one grants equal consideration to animals and in turn does not use them

as means to an end (i.e. find a vaccine through experimentation) but treats them as

equals. Singer in his approach however neglects many hidden weaknesses that

undermine the strength of his overall statement.

The argument against animal testing is understandable, but not truly justified.

The first significant issue not addressed by Singer is the extent to which the new

level of consideration should apply to all forms of life. If the capacity to suffer would

be the determining factor of this decision, then the extension of consideration

should run its course to the outmost reaches of the animal kingdom. This would

include such entities as bacteria, which most of humanity would find absurd and not

readily acceptable. Singer, in further review of his work, does not address the field
JACKSON 4

of insects, as the insect is an entity that in the moral mindscape of humanity does

not maintain a level of significance with regards to that of a dog, cat, or monkey.

This neglect for a possible addition to humanity's moral perspective lends itself to a

clear division of concern based upon an animal's classification. As Singer is

concerned with ending an arbitrary distinction as a means to segregate animal

concerns over a humans he fails by neglecting insects. Singer further weakens his

argument when he states that there is no need to interrupt the cycle of nature and

end the fighting amongst the animals as it is just a cycle in the circle of life. Singer

repeats this idea, as he never states in his work that it is wrong to kill an animal, as

it may always become necessary through self-preservation to end the life of another

animal (Singer 35).

The final avenue of support to the position that natural law must reign

supreme is found in the evidence gathered by Darwin and his overall statement that

evolution is the survival of the fittest. Through the research of Darwin it is possible

to observe the process of natural selection. The laws of nature dictate that an

organism will survive if it is able to adapt readily to its environment. The process of

natural selection observed by Darwin on Galapagos Island is the fundamental

evidence to the inherent process of nature and of life itself. Humanity has followed

this natural law throughout time and has adapted to many climates and regions of

the earth. Humanity, however, in its interest to become greater than the animals,

desires to leave its ancestral roots and instincts of survival in hopes of becoming a

pure society. If humanity were to leave behind its natural instincts, inherent in

basic animal survival, evolution itself would remove humanity from the earth as it
JACKSON 5

has failed to maintain the fundamental importance of survival. It is a fundamental

outcome of the process of evolution that if one species forgets the nature of life and

its principles, it is doomed to extinction.

The progression of humanity, which is echoed in this paper, is a natural

progression of moral concern, however it is a means by which the present may

forget the past and with a removal of the past comes an end upon itself. The

human goal to bring equal consideration to animals and to end the experimentation

and overall use of animals is one that goes against the laws of nature. This position

is supported through the negligence of Peter Singer in animal liberation, as well in

the overall beneficial nature of animal experimentation, and furthermore in the

review of the Darwinian principles of survival. The way to return society to a pre-

progressive state would be to destroy all of humanity's creations and return it to a

nomadic state. This return to the past would right the process of nature in all

respects, as society would again have to hunt and survive in nature to a greater

degree than today. It would be foolish for society to ignore technology and the

possibility of new treatment for millions in the name of animals that can be easily

bred in a laboratory and today even cloned. Those that believe animals are

equivalent to humans in spirit and worth are not forced to take the medicines that

vivisection has produced. However, if their children were to contract polio, will they

let them suffer and die because the medicine discovered was tested in animals? Is

an animal worth that much? In the grand plot of things, not really. The utilitarian

approach to life does support this mentality for if the use of animals to survive
JACKSON 6

brings the greatest good to humanity it is then clear that the greatest good has been

achieved.
JACKSON 7

Works Cited

Langley, Gill. Animal Experimentation. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1989

Medical Research Modernization Committee. A Critical Look at Animal

Experimentation. http://www.mrmcmed.org/critcv.html, 2/20/1999

Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill

College, 1999

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Avon books, 1990

Anda mungkin juga menyukai