"An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable"
About this Quote
Peter Singer sets a stark moral test for animal research: if a procedure would be unthinkable on a severely cognitively impaired human, then species alone cannot make it permissible for a nonhuman animal. The challenge targets speciesism, the practice of giving less weight to similar interests simply because they belong to a different species. For a utilitarian like Singer, the morally relevant feature is the capacity to suffer and to have interests, not membership in Homo sapiens. Equal suffering deserves equal consideration.
The argument draws on what philosophers call the problem of marginal cases. Many animals possess cognitive and emotional capacities comparable to some humans with profound impairments. If we would not subject those humans to painful experiments for the sake of knowledge or convenience, consistency seems to bar doing so to animals who can suffer similarly. Singer is not urging experiments on humans; he is using the human case as a moral yardstick to raise the bar for justifying harm.
This standard has sharp practical implications. It pushes beyond the familiar three Rs of replacement, reduction, and refinement, by asking whether the goal is so urgent that violating the strongest taboos against harming vulnerable humans would be defensible. Most toxicity tests, cosmetics trials, or marginally informative biomedical studies would fail that test. Only research of overwhelming importance, plausibly life-saving on a vast scale with no alternative methods, might meet it.
The claim also exposes a tension in common intuitions. Many people recoil at treating any human as mere means, yet accept painful procedures on animals with comparable sentience. Some reply that human dignity, social bonds, or special obligations make a difference. Singer invites scrutiny of whether those reasons can outweigh equal consideration of suffering, or whether they mask prejudice. Emerging non-animal methods and stricter necessity thresholds show the force of the challenge: either lift the justification of harm to the highest level, or concede that species alone is doing the ethical work.
The argument draws on what philosophers call the problem of marginal cases. Many animals possess cognitive and emotional capacities comparable to some humans with profound impairments. If we would not subject those humans to painful experiments for the sake of knowledge or convenience, consistency seems to bar doing so to animals who can suffer similarly. Singer is not urging experiments on humans; he is using the human case as a moral yardstick to raise the bar for justifying harm.
This standard has sharp practical implications. It pushes beyond the familiar three Rs of replacement, reduction, and refinement, by asking whether the goal is so urgent that violating the strongest taboos against harming vulnerable humans would be defensible. Most toxicity tests, cosmetics trials, or marginally informative biomedical studies would fail that test. Only research of overwhelming importance, plausibly life-saving on a vast scale with no alternative methods, might meet it.
The claim also exposes a tension in common intuitions. Many people recoil at treating any human as mere means, yet accept painful procedures on animals with comparable sentience. Some reply that human dignity, social bonds, or special obligations make a difference. Singer invites scrutiny of whether those reasons can outweigh equal consideration of suffering, or whether they mask prejudice. Emerging non-animal methods and stricter necessity thresholds show the force of the challenge: either lift the justification of harm to the highest level, or concede that species alone is doing the ethical work.
Quote Details
| Topic | Ethics & Morality |
|---|
More Quotes by Peter
Add to List
