Mother Nature's Mandate: Survive

Is it wrong for scientists to experiment on animals for medical research? Organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Great Ape Project (GAP) believe that since animals have the capacity to feel pain, they should not be used to further medical knowledge. Because both animals and humans are sentient, many animal rightists claim that the two groups are equal; furthermore, they claim that animals should be granted certain rights that prevent them from being used as subjects in medical experimentation. However, sentience alone does not entitle an organism to hold rights: It is the ability to control one's instincts that counts.

All animals can be divided into two categories: those that can make moral decisions and those that cannot. Based on this observation, an intelligent inference would be that not all animals are equal. But because animal activists have overlooked this difference, they have arrived at false conclusions. Peter Singer, one of the pioneers of the modern day animal rights movement, says it this way in his book, Animal Liberation, “The core of this book is the claim that to discriminate against beings solely on account of their species is a form of prejudice, immoral and indefensible in the same way that discrimination on the basis of race is immoral and indefensible” (243). Singer fails to understand exactly on what quality discrimination against animals is based. It is not species, but rather animals’ lack of ability to comprehend and control their actions. After all, if an animal had the same abilities as a human but merely belonged to a different species, the animal would be treated equally to a human.

Only humans, however, are capable of making moral choices; that is, they can distinguish between right and wrong and evaluate the morality of their actions. Animals, on the other hand, cannot. They are ruled by a survival impulse, not a moral one. David S. Oderberg, Reader in Philosophy at England’s University of Reading, goes further, explaining that animals cannot possess rights because they lack the knowledge of why they behave a certain way and the freedom to choose how they behave. Chimpanzees are infamous for spontaneously killing their young, but, as Oderberg points out, animal rightists fail to imprison them. Also, animal advocates do not suggest protecting gazelles from the jaws of hungry lions. Why is nothing done to prevent this murder among species? This lack of action is based on a basic truth about all nonhuman animals: they are unable to do anything other than what their inborn instincts allow.

Animal rightists argue that because animals have instincts, like humans, they should be treated in the same way. Even though humans commit actions based on instinct, such as eating and reproducing, humans can decide whether they want to eat or reproduce, whereas animals cannot. The ability of humans to hold rights is found in this fundamental difference (par. 17-18). Humans can hold rights because they are free to act however they wish; they are not mere automatons controlled by instinct. Animals, as a general rule, will do anything within their power to insure the continuance of their own existence, even if that means harming other sentient beings. For example, if a tiger senses danger from a human, the beast has no moral restraint to prevent it from disemboweling the man or woman. Angus Taylor, author of Magpies, Monkeys, and Morals, summarizes the traditional belief that a being cannot claim a right unless it is able to respect the rights of others (43-47). Since they are incapable of realizing the wrongness of such actions as killing humans, animals forfeit all claims to any rights protecting them from the same treatment.

For the sake of argument and thorough refutation, suppose, just for a moment, the false premise that all animals are equal is true. This pretended equality among animals presents several questions: If all animals are equal, why should one group, the humans, be caretakers of the other group, the nonhumans? Are humans really unequal to nonhumans, possessing traits that qualify them for the role of global animal protectors? What trait makes humans more qualified than nonhumans? If activists answer, “Humans have no superior traits,” then their entire case for humans protecting animals goes up in flames. Or if, which is more probable, they answer, “Humans, because they are more intelligent, must protect animals,” then they admit that humans are mentally superior and, therefore, unequal to the rest of the animal kingdom. As evidenced by the futility of such a claim when confronted by a sound argument, the delusion that all animals are equal can be dissected and exposed for what it is: a mutation of reason hopelessly spotted with defects.

Also, if we assume all animals are equal, the assumption raises another question: If nonhuman animals, such as lions, snakes, bears, and chimps, have the freedom to maintain their own survival by any means necessary, why shouldn’t human animals be given the same opportunity? To convey this simple idea, let us use deductive reasoning. The major premise is that all animals, because of their equality, have the right to continue their existence using whatever method available, regardless of the method’s morality. Humans are animals. Therefore, humans have the right to continue their existence using whatever method available, even if that method is animal experimentation.

Realizing the absurdity of the claim that all animals are equal, some activists have strayed far from the main school of thought, asserting instead that animals deserve protection because they are inferior. They agree that humans are superior to animals; consequently, they are required to protect the “innocent” nonhumans. If superior beings, meaning animals that possess any type of mental or physical advantage, must protect inferior beings, then the rules of nature would need revision. Lions would starve, for they would be jailed for brutally killing and eating their so-called inferior prey. Also, the bullfrog, after completing the digestion of a fly, would be found guilty of exploiting a disadvantaged insect. This, obviously, is not what transpires naturally. Lions brutally kill their prey, and bullfrogs exploit insects. Unless we can alter the very workings of nature, we cannot expect humans to stop insuring their own well-being. In summary, humans using animals for research is not any more atrocious than birds eating worms for nourishment.

Animal experimentation has already helped and will continue to help scientists discover solutions to many of the globe’s serious diseases. However, in order for the human species to persist and evolve, rational men and women who look to the future of humans, not animals, must silence the irrational battle cries of the animal activists with one potent dose of solid reason.

Works Cited

Oderberg, David S. “The Illusion of Animal Rights.” Human Life Review Spring 2000:

Cl. Acedemic Search Premier. 17 Oct. 2007. EbscoHost

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: The New York Review, 1990.

Taylor, Angus MacDonald. Magpies, Monkeys, and Morals. Canada: Broadview Press,

1999.