Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 23–31

Animal experimentation: pro and con arguments using the theory of evolution

  • Anders Nordgren
Article

Abstract

The theory of evolution has beenused in arguments regarding animalexperimentation. Two such arguments areanalyzed, one against and one in favor. Eachargument stresses the relevance of the theoryof evolution to normative ethics but attemptsexplicitly to avoid the so-called naturalisticfallacy.According to the argument against animalexperimentation, the theory of evolution`undermines' the idea of a special humandignity and supports `moral individualism'. Thelatter view implies that if it is wrong to usehumans in experiments, then it is also wrong touse animals, unless there are relevantdifferences between them that justify adifference in treatment. No such differencescan be found with regard to animals which lead`biographical lives'.The argument in favor of animal experimentationis based on evolutionary psychology. It statesthat humans, as all social animals, arespeciesist by nature and stresses that thisshould be taken seriously in normative ethics.This does not mean that animal interests shouldnot be considered, only that vital humaninterests may outweigh them.In order to assess the arguments, one has totake a stand on certain more basic issues: `is'versus `ought', impartiality versus specialobligations, and feelings/intuitions versusreason. Given the author's own position withregard to these more basic considerations, theevolutionary argument in favor of animalexperimentation is judged to be more convincingthan the one against but not decisive. It isalso maintained that not all animal experimentsare acceptable. Which animal experiments areacceptable and which are not has to be decidedon a case-by-case basis.

animal ethics animal experimentation evolution evolutionary psychology moral individualism moral intuitions naturalistic fallacy special obligations speciesism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, R.D.: 1987, The Biology of Moral Systems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  2. Arnhart, L.: 1998, Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bateson, P.: 1992, 'Do Animals Feel Pain?', New Scientist 134(1818), 30-33.Google Scholar
  4. Buckle, S.: 1991, Natural Law and the Theory of Property: Grotius to Hume. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Capaldi, N.: 1989, Hume's Place in Moral Philosophy. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  6. Fetzer, J.H.: 1996, 'Ethics and Evolution', in: J.P. Hurd (ed.), Investigating the Biological Foundations of Human Morality. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, pp. 223-242.Google Scholar
  7. Gruen, L.: 1993, 'Animals', in: P. Singer (ed.), A Companion to Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 343-353.Google Scholar
  8. Hume, D.: 1978, A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. LaFollette, H.: 1993, 'Personal Relationships', in: P. Singer (ed.), A Companion to Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 327-332.Google Scholar
  10. Leahy, M.P.T.: 1991, Against Liberation: Putting Animals in Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Midgley, M.: 1981, Heart and Mind: The Varieties of Moral Experience. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
  12. Midgley, M.: 1983, Animals and Why They Matter. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  13. Orlans, F.B.: 1993, In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Petrinovich, L.: 1998 (1995), Human Evolution, Reproduction, and Morality. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Petrinovich, L.: 1999, Darwinian Dominion: Animal Welfare and Human Interests. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Rachels, J.: 1989, 'Morality, parents, and children', in: G. Graham and H. LaFollette (eds.), Person to Person. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Rachels, J.: 1990, Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Regan, T.: 1983, The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rodd, R.: 1990, Biology, Ethics, and Animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Singer, P.: 1975 (rev. ed. 1990), Animal Liberation. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
  21. Wilson, E.O.: 1975, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Wilson, J.Q.: 1993, The Moral Sense. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  23. Woolcock, P.G.: 1999, 'The Case against Evolutionary Ethics Today', in: J. Maienschein and M. Ruse (eds.), Biology and the Foundation of Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anders Nordgren
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences (Biomedical Ethics)Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations