Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Provivisection literature also includes a survival-based variant on the argument from
greater care. Research, in this variant, is a manifestation of the evolutionary imperat-
ive for species survival, and for the apologists of animal experiments this turns into a
moral justification:
The foregoing arguments in this essay [arguments according to which animal-based
research promotes human survival] illustrate that, from the perspective of Darwinian
theory, the exploitation of some species of animals by others is not an appropriate
topic for moral concern, especially when the exploiting animals need to engage in
this activity in order to survive. This generalization applies to the human animals as
well as to other predatory species.
18
As a biologist . . . I recognize that all species are in a struggle for existence. As
the most intelligent species on the planet, we would be extremely foolish to deny this
fact and not act on behalf of our own families, friends, and, ultimately, our own spe-
cies by not engaging in biomedical research by all means available. Actually, we
would be denying a biological imperative: the drive to survive.
19
Philosophers who would attempt to recast such arguments in ways that do not rely
on obvious conflation of descriptive and normative claims will have to turn survival
into a morally acceptable motive for action. “Denying biological imperatives” as such
will not do (that opens a Pandora's box since culture and moral conduct is largely
built on numerous such denials). The implicit principle that these authors rely on is
that acting out one's preprogrammed blueprint is on its own a moral justification for
one's actions. This principle is patently false, since one may be programmed to do
evil. And since these authors do not also endorse determinism, they cannot be under-
stood as saying that we have no choice in the matter but to act out our instincts,
thereby exonerating our animal-related practices.
Survival is itself a morally complex motive. Fierce survival struggles sometimes
(though not always) altogether annul moral consideration. We shun the presumption to
morally criticize the actions of starving or terrorized people. On the other hand, some
who have survived Nazi ghettos, for example, have been put on trial for surviving
through corrupt means. Various war crimes also attest to our willingness to place
moral blame on those whose personal survival was severely threatened when perform-
ing the crimes. Personal survival does not then trump all moral concerns. Even if it
did, the theorists I am citing are not discussing personal survival but the survival of
the species. This is far-fetched. I am not aware of an animal-related scientific break-
through that is credited with saving our entire species as such. If we ever reach an
impasse that requires animal experiments to save human existence, survival through
such sacrifice can be conceptualized through Darwinian amoral terms (note, though,
that the same justification holds for experimenting on humans of a particular ethnic
