Under these hypothetical conditions, many animal-rights supporters would accept the experiment. Of course, the conditions are completely unrealistic and would never occur in real life. Even so, I think discussing such hypothetical scenarios sheds considerable light on the issues involved.
Consider a new hypothetical scenario that is very different. Again, suppose that a cure for cancer could be produced through an experiment on just one test subject. But in this new scenario, the test subject must be a human being.
We could try to escape the dilemma by volunteering ourselves. But suppose the test subject must meet certain physical criteria that neither we nor any other volunteer meet. If we support conducting this one experiment to cure cancer, we must therefore select an innocent human being against their will.
Suppose also that we find a potential subject with no friends or relatives. Imagine further that this person has a severe intellectual disability, with an intellectual capacity no greater than that of a typical laboratory rat. Would we consider this experiment ethically acceptable?
Some people will say that it is never acceptable to take an innocent person’s life under any circumstances and will find the whole suggestion repugnant. Others would point out that we kill innocent people when we bomb enemy states during wartime, and do so for reasons far less noble than finding a cure for cancer.
Many others would respond that, while they are not pacifists, there are important moral distinctions between killing people in wartime and experimenting on a human being against their will. Others would say that, ultimately, we should judge the experiment by how much suffering the person would have to endure before dying.
Whatever our answer, we should apply our ethical principles consistently. Our answer should not change depending on whether the potential test subject is of the same race or ethnicity as us. Nor should it depend on the subject’s sex or nationality.
Although not all animal-rights supporters share my view, I believe our answer should also not change depending on whether the potential subject belongs to our species. I consider the species boundary no less arbitrary than boundaries based on race, ethnicity or nationality.
Not all animal-rights supporters agree with me, but I believe the only logically consistent way to accept an experiment on an animal is also to accept the exact same experiment on a member of our own species.
Continue with these questions:
- How can some animal-rights activists consider other animals our equals?
- Shouldn’t our duty to our own species come first?
- Do animal-rights supporters avoid life-saving medicines developed through animal testing?
- Are animals also killed during crop harvesting and road construction?
- How is animal testing different from other situations where people kill animals to survive?
More answers: Vegan Ethics FAQ.