Best of Miami Portfolios 2001 - Units.muohio.edu

another creature for survival is in no way morally sound. It is no more right than shooting a man
in cold blood. From the human being hunting a hamburger in a McDonalds to a wolf hunting
caribou on the tundra, it is a necessary part of life. Life must kill to survive. As Jim Mahoney, an
animal researcher stated, “I do not think that human beings have a right to use animals in any
form...but we have a need and I can truly see no alternative.”
For centuries, philosophers have been debating the great moral question, “Do the ends
justify the means?” Do the benefits of animal testing outweigh the cost to individual animals? For
some, this is not a question; animals are inferior and therefore obviously humans outweigh them no
matter what. Why are animals necessarily inferior to humans, though? Is it intelligence? Some
primates that are used for testing demonstrate an intelligence on par with that of some humans. Is
it lack of technological skill? Chimpanzees use tools similar to those of remote African tribes.
Would testing on, say, a pygmy be acceptable? Never. The only reason that humans deem animals
inferior is because of a species bias (Dave Weaner Interview). “Humans are superior simply
because I am a human and therefore, they are better!” In short, humans use animals because they
can and because they find the tests too awful to implement on a member of their own species.
Therefore, in answering the question of do the ends justify the means, one must try to look at each
situation objectively. Pretend those are humans being tested upon and not a hamster or rabbit. If
the benefits of the test to life in general still outweigh the cost, if that test is necessary for one’s
survival, then there is no alternative. In these cases, testing is justified, as long as it is done as
humanely and as respectfully as possible. If the answer is no and if the test will probably bring no
advantage to life, then to carry out the test would be a waste of one or many lives and is
unacceptable.
The “great” philosopher Spock once asked, “Do the good of the many outweigh the good of
the few or the one?” Do the rights of humans to protect their own species overrule the rights of
animals to life? Unfortunately, as in every moral dilemma, there is no one concrete answer.
Progress is an inevitable part of human existence; it is the struggle against the earth, against the
natural laws, and against our very species—it is a struggle for survival. To survive it is necessary
to use whatever resources are available to do so, in this case, animals. New alternatives and
regulations have reduced the need and use of animals in experiments, but they remain and will
remain until humanity can find a better alternative. Testing is morally wrong, but in many cases,
unavoidable, and in these instances, the good of the many must come before the good of the few or
the one. True, animal testing has brought the human race many advances in the area of medicine
and technology, but the cost has been horrendous. The only solution to this moral dilemma of
necessity versus morality is to have compassion and judgement in what is really important for
survival. If every person showed compassion and respect for those animals which they must use,
only essential testing would be carried out with the same benefits to humans and fewer costs to the
animals involved. With each and every animal that must be harmed, look into their eyes and think,
in the words of another great philosopher, Sergeant Joe Friday, “What gives you the right to choose
when to end their life?” Look into their face and remember that always.
58