From MARC - Commenting on Peter Singer & his position on animal experimentation

[Guest guest]

Submitted by: " Trisha R " <Taliesson on Animal_Net

 

From Ma. Animal Rights Coalition - MARC (US)

 

Peter Singer has sent his comments in to the newspaper and we

included them below. As background, Peter Singer has always been a

proponent of the utilitarian philosophy. The basis of utilitarian

ethics is that whatever brings the greatest benefit to the greatest

number of sentient beings is ethical. Thus, Singer says, " Neither in

my 1975 book Animal Liberation, nor anywhere else, have I ever said

that no experiments on animals could ever be justifiable " . In

essence, he is refusing to completely reject animal experimentation,

as indicated by this quote: " In our on-camera discussion, Professor

Aziz claimed that experiments he had performed on a small number of

monkeys had yielded major benefits for tens of thousands of people

suffering from Parkinson's Disease. I replied that if the facts were

indeed as he asserted, and there was no other way in which the

benefits could have been achieved, such research could be

justifiable " . Singer has argued that if a few suffer so many can

gain, that is morally justifiable. Although this argument may make

sense for a progressive tax system where the suffering of those

paying the most taxes is minimal, it becomes very different when the

suffering involves painful invasive animal experiments.

 

This system of ethics, and Peter Singer's use of it, have been

severely criticized by other animal rights ethicists such as Tom

Regan, Mark Rowland, and Gary Francione. By the way, here is Tom

Regan's response to this issue:

http://www.speakcampaigns.org/articles/20061128tomregan.php

 

Although the basic premise of utilitarianism may sound good, ANY harm

done to an individual may be justified as long as overall good

outweighs the overall harm. The danger of this is two fold: (1)

calculating the level of harm versus benefit is virtually impossible,

and (2) no individual's rights can outweigh the common good. So, a

utilitarian might say that painful, invasive experiments could be

conducted on humans against their wills if society benefited. A

utilitarian might justify the CIA's use of torture done by repressive

regimes because " many will benefit " . Although Singer may not make

these claims, he has definitely said that humans CAN do painful

invasive experiments on animals if more humans benefit than the

animals that suffer and if the benefits are " great enough " . Thus, he

says that if primate experiments help humans more than the animals

suffer, they are ok. How one does the math on comparing suffering and

gain is very difficult to envision. Singer has ALWAYS held this view.

 

Most current animal rights philosophers hold to the belief that no

individual (human or non-human animal) should be forced to suffer so

that someone else could benefit. This is a basic premise of human

ethics, utilitarianism aside. Thoreau wrote in Resistance to Civil

Government, " If I unjustly wrestled a plank (piece of wood) from a

drowning man , I must restore it to him though I may drown myself. "

Causing others to suffer to benefit ourselves, even if more of us

benefit than those suffering, is unjust. Frederick Douglass said

about slavery, " No man under the sun believes slavery is the right

thing FOR HIM " . Add in the dubious scientific benefit of animal

experiments for human health problems, and Singer's arguments get

even shakier. ALL vivisectors argue that few animals suffer and

humans gain greatly from their research; if they didn't, then their

whole massive PR effort to defend bad science and worse ethics would

be challenged. Vivisectors also almost alwa ys say that no other

methods would work, which is untrue. Clearly, Singer knows this and

could have thought of a more savvy answer to a question he should

have expected. Ultimately, though, because he seems to be locked into

utilitarianism as a system of ethics, he gave the reply quoted above,

which will now be re-printed repeatedly.

 

Recently, Singer's philosophy has taken him to the point of actually

saying it is ethically ok to eat organic meat, dairy and eggs, much

to the delight of the media and meat industries. Again, any

subtleties of his argument are lost, and the media only prints lines

like " Animal Rights leader says it's ok to eat meat. " Anyone can be

misquoted, but Singer defends himself against any movement criticism

by saying that ANY publicity related to animals is good, a claim that

lacks evidence. In the Oxford case, it is very difficult to see how

his apparent justification of primate experimentation is going to do

animals any good. Equally, with more and more young people opting to

choose vegetarianism, claims like Singer's may prevent people from

making better choices. Although he is often viewed as, and promotes

himself as, the spokesperson for the Animal Rights movement, many, if

not most, animal rights activists disagree with him on these issues.

We think this could be a case of th e students surpassing the

teacher: although Singer was very influential in a positive way for

animals when the movement was young, he has not evolved with the

majority of the movement.

 

~Helen & Steve

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Peter Singer's response to the article:

 

Your story " Animal Guru Gives Tests His Blessing " (Observer, 26/11/06)

suggests that my remarks in the BBC2 documentary " Monkeys, Rats and

Me: Animal Testing " represent a change in my position on animal

testing. That impression needs to be corrected.

 

Neither in my 1975 book Animal Liberation, nor anywhere else, have I

ever said that no experiments on animals could ever be justifiable.

My position has always been that whether an act is right or wrong

depends on its consequences. I do insist, however, that the interests

of animals count among those consequences, and that we cannot justify

speciesism, which I define as giving less weight to the interests of

nonhuman animals than we give to the similar interests of human

beings.

 

In our on-camera discussion, Professor Aziz claimed that experiments

he had performed on a small number of monkeys had yielded major

benefits for tens of thousands of people suffering from Parkinson's

Disease. I replied that if the facts were indeed as he asserted, and

there was no other way in which the benefits could have been

achieved, such research could be justifiable. Whether the facts are

as Professor Aziz claims I shall leave for others to debate.

 

Professor Aziz is quoted as saying that my remarks are " an

encouraging sign. " Before he gets too encouraged, he might consider

that in Animal Liberation I suggested that a test for whether a

proposed experiment on animals is justifiable is whether the

experimenter would be prepared to carry out the experiment on human

beings at a similar mental level - say, those born with irreversible

brain damage. If Professor Aziz is not prepared to say that he would

think such experiments justifiable, his willingness to use animals is

based on a prejudice against giving their interests the same weight

as he gives to the interests of members of our own species.

 

Whether or not the occasional experiment on animals is defensible, I

remain opposed to the institutional practice of using animals in

research, because, despite some improvements over the past thirty

years, that practice still fails to give equal consideration to the

interests of animals. For that reason I oppose putting more resources

into building new facilities for animal experimentation. Instead,

these funds should go into clinical research involving consenting

patients, and into developing other methods of research that do not

involve the harmful use of animals.

 

Peter Singer