Vivisection, morals, medicine: commentary from an antivivisectionist philosopher.

Dr Frey appears to support the following nine propositions on which I shall comment in turn. Although not all are explicitly formulated, it seems clear that he means to advocate them all. 1) Vivisection involving pain is in a large number of cases justified and desirable because of the benefits it confers on humans-and perhaps other animals. 2) The same is true of experiments on animals not involving pain. 3) Most antivivisectionists think it equally true that both kinds of experiment are wrong-even if not equally wrong. 4) If experiments on animals are considered justifiable and desirable while corresponding experiments on humans are not, a reason should be given. 5) The reason usually given is that human life has greater value than animal life. There seems no better one. 6) Unless specifically religious doctrines are invoked, and these are unavailable to the author and many for whom he writes, this greater value must consist in human engagement in, or potentiality for engagement in, a rich and varied complex of activities closed to animals. 7) It follows from 5) and 6) that experimentation on (what I shall call) 'low grade' humans-those who lack even potentiality for the kind ofhigher lifestyle which gives special value to most human living-is, in principle, as justifiable and probably sometimes as desirable as experiments on animals. 8) It should be admitted by all, except those with special religious beliefs, that experimentation, even painful in character, on animals and low grade humans is ethically on a par, and one should either countenance both or neither. The author countenances both, since the benefits are so great. 9) The author concludes reluctantly (Why is he reluctant, unless perhaps he fears a low grade future for himself?) that the only reason for thinking experimentation perhaps painful-on low grade humans is unjustifiable and undesirable, if at all, may be that the outrage it would evoke would damage medical and other (otherwise) desirable research to an extent which would be self-defeating. This is not a deep reason against such experimentation since it turns on contingent facts about public attitudes which improvements in education might alter. Comments on the nine propositions 1) Someone like myself who, broadly speaking, buys the antivivisectionist ticket will be concerned first to emphasise how very great an evil animal suffering, like human suffering, is in itself. Although I do not accept all the doctrines of any ethical utilitarianism …