Utilitarianism in Using of Animals in Medical Experiments

Introduction

Advocacy for animal rights – especially in medical experiments that are considered too risky for humans – is an example of utilitarianism conflicting with ethics and morality. Use of animals as “guinea pigs”, literally, in the search for effective and safe drugs serves human interest, with are higher than animal interests, but some people elevate the animal interests to human level, therefore they find it “inhuman”, repugnant and against morality to use animals, Singer, p.1. My aim is to show how this form of utilitarianism, while helping the majority of people, has a psychological and moral flipside.

Social Concern
The United States alone has several thousand laboratories that use millions of live animals for experimentation, places like universities, pharmaceutical firms, research centers, centre for disease control, and other places. The use of animals in dangerous experiments is not appropriate because it is risky to both animal and human, it is the reason for many viruses jumping and mutating from animals to humans, and many animal activists cite the case of HIV and AIDS. To some other people, it is necessary to protect humans from the risk of experimental drugs, and therefore need to use animals instead. According to Singer, p. 8, most experimental animals which were initially healthy however end up dying in excruciating pain and incurable ailments. Personally, I am against use of animals in experimental drugs because it is cruel to animals, decimates animal populations and is not the only option available to conduct experiments. It should concern other people as well because animals are useful to humans in many ways, other than being used for dangerous experiments.

Utilitarianism explained

The theory of utilitarianism explains that an action that makes the larger number of people to feel happier is a proper action, even if such an action may be devoid of moral judgment as being right or wrong. Utilitarianism is universal to all humans, welfare-oriented, and has consequences. There is intrinsic value or utility in the utilitarian action, for example, when the experimental drug is a success it cures many afflicted people, at the expense of the animals. Utilitarianism actually supports moral intuitions and at times bends them for the common good.  Mills, p.6,argues that happiness is derived from the action when it creates more pleasure than pain, even when the motive is not right. Pleasure is a diverse state of desire such as pride, intelligence, serenity, and so on, and not just a feeling of joyous mood. Moreover, the intrinsic value of pleasure should be measurable by way of comparison, as one pleasure being more valuable than the alternative pleasures, and happiness or unhappiness is summations of experiences.

Utilitarianism applied to the experiment animals
In a social website, http://www.debate.org/, 18% of people support and 82% oppose use of animals in scientific experiments, and I would side with the 82%. I would argue that utilitarian attitude has impacted negatively on animals used in medical experiments in a number of ways. America has been decimated of much of her wildlife and using the few remaining animals in experiments is likely to lead to negative mutations, poaching and trafficking of animals from other countries, or even extinction of species and this action is a disvalue to utilitarianism. Observations by Singer, p.4, indicate that many laboratory animals undergo painful and harrowing experiences such as “psychological” torture, deliberate maiming, introduced diseases, and finally killing, yet like humans, animals have sensual pain and pleasure. Although the interest of animals may be lower than that of humans, the animal interest should not be brushed aside; much like we should not brush aside the interests of one group of humans, say the coloreds, in favor of another group, say the whites. Animals do not choose to be included in human activities; therefore they should be allowed to live their natural life unfettered, Singer p.7.

It would appear to me that scientists have a full list of harmful substances that could afflict humans, and therefore when creating drugs, they should use chemical tests and not living things leading to even greater economic savings. Some experiments are unnecessary, for example sending a dog into space to see if it will survive, or blinding a cat to see how it behaves in blindness, which create negative emotion in humans, Singer, pp.5-6. Advocates of utilitarianism see the continued use of animals in experiments as having a positive impact on the economy, since it promotes health and happiness of the majority of people. The animals do not enjoy human rights and are meant to serve human interests in the first place. Most human beings are skeptical about acting as an experimental drug tester because unsuccessful outcome could cause irreversible harm, and in any case it is illegal to conduct toxicological tests on human beings. Animals lack a sense of duty and it is upon human to use their intellect to protect the wider human and animal societies through such experiments. Animals share genes with humans, suffer from similar diseases caused by the same pathogens, and respond to the same types of medicine as humans, therefore it is not wrong to use them in place of humans when experimenting. Economically, use of animals, which are cheap to acquire and maintain, is more sensible than using human beings who could sue for huge sums in damages and who are demanding of the manner they are treated while undergoing the experiment. It is not possible to conduct extreme experiments that could cost human lives, lives which should instead be saved by the very experiments and therefore animals are used instead.

Utilitarianism Animal Experiments Challenged
In favor of utilitarianism in animal experiments, animals serve human interest and complement our lives in many ways, including source of food and clothing, companionship, protection, beasts of burden, and so on. Experimenting with animals is cost-effective as there are plenty of the common laboratory animals, and most animals die of causes other than laboratory experiments. The fact that other animals also benefit from positive results of the experiments justifies “volunteering” some of their own species members to the experiments, especially because some experiment animals like rabbits are resilient and rats are considered to be pests. In their own ways, animals need human care and assisted breeding for their interest in survival and continuity of species. People who rely on the laboratory animals; for example, farmers who raise and sell laboratory animals for their economic well being, researchers who work with the animals as their career, would therefore be harmed if animals were not used in experiments. An alternative to animal experiments is to use their knowledge of biotechnology to simulate the effects of drugs and the likely reaction of such drugs on living things (human beings), and this would reduce the suffering of animals.

Works Cited

animals used for experimentation. peta, 2008. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/>.

Mill, John S. Utilitarianism . 7th ed. London: Longmans, 1879. .

Singer, Peter. In Defense of Animals. New York: Blackwell, 1985. Print.

Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Fundamentals of Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.