by Edwin A. Locke, Ph.D.
College of Business and Management, University of Maryland, College Park
Scientists and researchers have now become acutely aware of the dangers posed
by the animal rights movement - the ultimate danger being to human life and
welfare. Many scientific organizations are now hitting back by educating the lay
public, courting newspaper reporters, correcting distortions of medical history,
and urging state and national legislatures to reject pro-animal rights bills and
to introduce anti-terrorist legislation instead.
All this is well and good, but one element of the battle, the one I believe
is most fundamental, has been almost entirely neglected. It pertains to the
moral issue involved. In reply to all the factual and pragmatic arguments (e.g.,
medical research saves human lives), the animal rights activists can and often
do reply: so what? Even if it is true, they argue, that research with animals
saves humans lives, it is irrelevant; we could also save lives by doing forcible
experiments on humans, but we do not do them because it would be immoral. The
same goes, they claim, for animals; using animals for research is just as
immoral as it would be to use humans.
The moral argument of the animal rightists boils down to one essential point:
Rights, they claim, are based on the capacity to feel pain, that is, to suffer.
Thus, anyone who causes a sentient being to suffer in any way is violating its
rights, i.e. is acting unethically. (It is interesting to note that the animal
rights position would not prohibit murder, as long as it was done without
warning and painlessly!)
The argument that rights are based on the capacity to suffer is totally
false. The truth is that rights are based on the capacity to think, i.e. to
reason. Let me explain why. Rights are a moral concept; they assert that certain
action are right and others are wrong. Thus, they pre-suppose beings who are
capable of grasping moral principles, which means: beings who are rational.
Rights are also a social concept. Their purpose is to protect people from
certain actions of other people. The principle that you have a right to your
life means that you have the right to think about what you should do to promote
your well-being and be free to act in accordance with your judgment (your
reason). Reason, for man is his means of survival. Reason is a volitional
activity and can only be negated by use of physical force; thus, the concept of
rights prohibits people from initiating force against other people. To quote Ayn
Rand, "A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of
action in a social context." In sum, rights protect people from other people in
the name of human life. The concept is totally inapplicable to animals, which do
not possess reason, cannot grasp moral principles, and cannot volitionally
direct their actions.
(Do not be confused by those who use borderline cases to attack the above.
The concept of rights is not formulated by focusing on infants, the senile, the
comatose, or the mentally ill. These fall into the special category of
"developing" or "sick" humans. What is appropriate for such people involves a
special application of what is appropriate for healthy adults. For example,
children have the right to life but not the right to vote or sign contracts.)
Man's actions toward animals should be governed by sympathy, not by the
principle of rights. No decent person would want to gratuitously cause pain to
animals simple for the purpose of causing pain. Nor do the overwhelming majority
of medical researchers want to hurt animals - nor do they do so. But to some
degree and in some cases this may be necessary to save human lives. The issue is
not that man is morally superior to animals; it is that animals are simply
outside the realm of morality.
It is not the conducting but the prohibiting of animal research which is
actually immoral. Such a prohibition would forcibly prevent people from acting
to further their own lives and happiness. Stopping medical research would cause
millions of people to suffer and die who might otherwise be helped. The claim
that animal research is immoral is not just an error but a complete inversion!
Animal rights advocates (at least the leaders) are the ones who are anti-life;
their hatred of man is openly and loudly proclaimed. They must be fought and
stopped in the name of morality. It is the medical researchers who are pro-life.
They must be defended, supported and praised in the name of morality.
(CFAAR San Diego Newsletter, Summer/Fall 1991)
