A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!		NoodleFood : RSS Feed | via E-mail | Recent Comments | Archives NoodleCast : M4A via iTunes (MP3) | via Feed Reader | via E-mail Diana Hsieh : Rationally Selfish | PhiloFiles | Explore Atlas Shrugged OList Mailing Lists | FIRM | FRO | Secular Government

Tuesday, September 09, 2008 Derbyshire on the Morality of Animal Research By Paul Hsieh @ 7:03 AM British scientist Stuart Derbyshire recently wrote the following essay defending the right of humans to use animals in scientific/medical research, and attacking the current UK scientific mainstream position against such research. I thought it was especially noteworthy that he attempted to make his case on moral grounds. For instance, his article is entitled: "Humans are more important than animals" Also, the subheading is: "When it comes to using animals in research, the only moral judgement should be: does it benefit humankind?" In a related earlier essay from 2006 entitled, "The hard arguments about vivisection", Derbyshire also arguee: There is very good reason for believing that human beings are special. The sheer staggering scale and richness of human culture are unlike anything in any other species. The development of medicine, industry, transportation, communication, clean water, a stable food supply, and so on, are the discernible signs of culture and progress that are evidently absent from the non-human world. The absence of such cultural development in the animal world means that their experiences are also likely to be wholly dissimilar from ours, both as a cause and consequence of their limited progress. Arguments in favour of animal research must include an acknowledgement that human beings are special... Derbyshire is definitely moving in the right direction, although he does not quite make the full moral case. What he lacks is the explicit identification of reason as the source of human "specialness" (although it is implicit in his argument). It is man's capacity for reason that gives rise to and explains the various unique features of human culture and behaviour Derbyshire describes. "Reason" is thus a fundamental characteristic of "man", and is why one properly defines "man" as "a rational animal". Derbyshire also doesn't quite make the argument that reason is the source of rights and that it is precisely man's capacity for reason (and the volitional exercise thereof) that makes man's special moral status both possible and necessary: The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A -- and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. This is yet another example of where Objectivist philosophy can help place others' good ideas on a more solid philosophical footing. Nonetheless, it is encouraging to see a scientist taking a man-centered view of his work, and using benefit to man as his standard of value. I hope we will see more discussion by scientists along these lines. And I also hope that Objectivists will be contributing to this debate. * * * I did submit a supportive letter to Spiked, but I'm not completely satisfied with the argument I used. If anyone has ideas for better formulations aimed at an active-minded member of the general public, please offer your suggestions in the comments section. In particular, I am interested in formulations that would fit within the usual LTE word limit of 150-250 words. I also welcome any criticism of what I actually did submit. If I botched my argument or should have taken a different tack, please don't be shy in telling me! Here is what I submitted: Thank you for publishing Dr. Stuart Derbyshire's essay, as well as linking to his 2006 piece, "The Hard Arguments About Vivisection". As a practicing physician, I am blessed to see daily the tremendous benefits that patients reap from scientific breakthroughs resulting from animal research -- such as new "clot buster" drugs to stop brain strokes. I wish more scientists defended the morality of animal research on precisely the same grounds that Dr. Derbyshire does -- that it is good for people. Dr. Derbyshire is quite right -- humans are special relative to animals, because they possess the unique faculty of reason. It is this faculty that gives rise to and explains all the manifestations of human culture that he rightly praises in his 2006 essay, such as "medicine, industry, transportation, communication". Animals exhibit none of this complex behaviour precisely because they lack the faculty of reason. Furthermore it is man's faculty of reason, not his capacity for suffering, that makes the concept of "rights" both possible and necessary. Rights are moral principles defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context -- principles which presuppose both volition and reason. Animals have survival needs, but not rights -- we don't say that a lion violates an antelope's "rights" when it stalks and kills the antelope. Nor does a human violate a cow's "rights" when he eats a hamburger. If humans can morally eat animals for food, we can also properly use them for other purposes that serve human interests, such as medical research. Thank you, Paul Hsieh, MD Sedalia, CO USA Co-founder, Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) Update: My letter (along with a few others) appears here. Labels: Animals, Ethics, Science Share |    E-mail Paul Hsieh     PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)   Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader   via E-mail Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3)   via Feed Reader   via E-mail

Comments
	Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 10:13:52 mst Comment ID: #1 Name: Dan Derbyshire's argument sounds utilitarian to me. Many utilitarians say we should give equal moral status to all animals because they all experience pain and pleasure; Derbyshire seems to be saying that there is something special about OUR experiences that makes them intrinsically more valuable, so that the pleasure of humankind should be maximized first. Not only does he seem to be missing any mention of reason or rights, but he seems to be opposed to that approach.
	Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 15:50:11 mst Comment ID: #2 Name: Valda Redfern E-mail: valda.redfern(at)gmail.com URL: http://valzhalla.blogspot.com The iatrophobe: "...a skeptical public watching whiny rich doctors who just want more more more." More and more what? Any self-respecting doctor wants less and less government regulation of medicine; so does any patient who knows what's good for him. A doctor who knows his stuff wants what he can _earn_, not what the state can extort on his behalf.
	Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 8:35:41 mst Comment ID: #3 Name: William H. Stoddard E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/ I believe that the final paragraph of your LTE is misjudged rhetorically. The function of a closing sentence or paragraph is not to introduce anything new, but to sum up what has been said before in a memorable way. It can introduce new examples but not raise new issues. But in current culture, the morality of eating animals is such a new issue. There are increasing numbers of vegetarians, and at least in California, where I live, restaurants routinely offer vegetarian dishes, to avoid losing not only the business of vegetarians but that of people who want to dine with vegetarian friends. And many vegetarians avoid eating meat specifically for ethical reasons. There is also a more widespread sentiment that does not reject the eating of meat as such, but regards the meat industry's practices as cruel and calls for massive regulation to provide "cruelty-free" meat, presumably at much higher cost. By simply assuming that meat eating is legitimate, you are thus raising a new controversial topic in your final sentence, one that you aren't going to argue for, but that some readers will disagree with you on, and in doing so dismiss the arguments that led up to this conclusion. This is not to say that there are not valid arguments for carnivory. I regard eating meat not merely as ethically legitimate but as a small celebration of freedom. But making those arguments would require a separate, and likely much longer paper. They were not on topic for the argument you were making, and it would have been rhetorically better to come up with a different final point that didn't open up a new and larger issue in this way.
	Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 10:07:20 mst Comment ID: #4 Name: Paul Hsieh E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com URL: http://www.geekpress.com William: Thanks for the feedback! I'm basically an amateur at writing, with no formal training beyond the usual writing classes in college. So any constructive criticisms are always very welcome, since my goal is to become better at communicating my ideas to the general public in as persuasive a fashion as possible.
	Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 16:25:18 mst Comment ID: #5 Name: William H. Stoddard E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/ The other thing I'd say about this issue, and it's something of a tangential issue, is that I don't find the exclusive focus on animal rights entirely satisfactory. Certainly, I agree that animals cannot have rights; for one thing, they are incapable of purposeful action, and thus of making any commitment either to an agreement, or to a moral standard, that would restrict their own actions, and if they cannot bind themselves to obey the law, they can't be protected by the law. And that puts them in the standard of property (owned or unowned) rather than of persons. I don't dispute the legitimacy of using them for human purposes. But there are people who enjoy inflicting pain and suffering for their own sakes, and who would inflict them on animals if it were permitted, not for the sake of any valid purpose such as food or research or training, but purely because they find pain and destruction emotionally rewarding. And, well, that gives me a sense of horror. The fact that animals can suffer is not simply irrelevant to me. I'm willing to regard the suffering one animal inflicts on another as morally neutral; I can't regard the suffering a human being chooses to inflict on an animal as morally neutral. There isn't any way that I can see to prevent such deliberately cruelty by a proper use of rights; animals cannot have rights, and if they are property, their owners cannot be prevented from mistreating them without denying their property rights. But I flinch at simply saying, "Oh, well, that's really repulsive behavior, but we can't forbid people to do it." And yet I can't see a way to grant the state the power to legislate against cruelty to animals without opening the door to all sorts of abusive legislation. I don't think we can called torturing one's own animal initiation of force, or stopping it retaliation; but it's a case where I find it hard not to sympathize with the initiation of force.
	Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 17:43:11 mst Comment ID: #6 Name: Burgess Laughlin E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com In a free society--capitalism--there is another choice: neither state intervention nor passivity, but peaceful punitive actions such as ostracism, boycotting, blacklisting, and shaming. Making it hard for the miscreant to buy groceries and keep a job would tend to discourage such behavior. Not about torturing animals, but about individual behaviors or beliefs that are destructive to a movement's chance of success, "Quality Control in Movements" discusses related issues: http://aristotleadventure.blogspot.com/2008/07/quality-control-in-m ...
Post Your Comment
Name or Handle: E-mail: URL:   Remember Me   Comment:   No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links. Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome. The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays. To weed out spammers: 9 plus 2 equals 283453244131852534