Waiting to Collide

Sitting at my desk bent over an article on bioethics — specifically on animal testing. (You’re my friends, you know my job, know my stance.) To an atheist, ethics are a constant source of pride, irritation, and bewilderment — it exposes our soft underbellies. Personally, I take full responsibility for my choices in this world because I have no greater power to defer to. I do not believe in a deity, and my politics are such that I place emphasis on individual choice over trusting in leaders or, more frightening, the masses. What instills this deep desire to behave ethically? Why do we not go on crazy killing sprees? Is it simple fear of consequences? Oh, so many questions…

Back to work-related ruminating.

Animal rights movement. Humaniacs. They can’t hear their own internal monologue over the screeching of their voices. Forget about listening to, or (god forbid) formulating, ethical arguments. Not ONCE have I heard an activist espouse the following argument, which — although full of holes — is accessible to the lay man and valid if you have loose definitions.

Enter Peter Singer, father of the animal rights movement, author of Animal Liberation, and borderline logical individual. He defines sentience as the ability to perceive pain and pleasure, and thus gives animals ethical purchase. Albeit, this loses all connotation of the word, but fits the strictest definition.

He argues animal rights from a utilitarian perspective. (If you aren’t familiar with utilitarianism, follow this link.) Basically, we can’t justify the use of thousands/millions of animals because their needs to be taken into account when we are assessing the good of the many.

Singer plays off of the emotional knee-jerk response of those who value ALL human life above ALL animal life when he brings up “marginal cases.” Marginal cases are cases in which the reasoning power of the human in question is diminished (retardation, long-term coma suffers, babies). This is a deft stroke, as most would separate humans from animals based on our ability to reason, and argues that as the rational ability of these individuals is similar to (or perhaps less than that of) animals, that marginal cases should be used for medical research similarly. Well, there’s no quicker way to piss of a bunch of people than suggest they use their cousin Sue in spinal injury studies, or their ugly flesh-potato of a child in leukemia studies. Differentiation based solely on species he deems “speciesism” and taunts us to put a foot on the slippery slope of speciesism->racism.   Sneaky bastard.

Let’s start with the definition of “sentient.” Firstly, pain and pleasure are two conditions that can only be verified by testing. The knowledge necessary to apply protection to species capable of feeling pain and pleasure can only be gained by potentially harming them. If a single-celled organism moves out of the way when prodded, does it feel pain? (This, I will admit, is weak as we cannot avoid most of the injury we will cause at a microscopic level, or even on a small macroscopic level (ie: stepping on ants) short of denying our own right to exist.) Where do we draw the line? Secondly, Springer has stripped the word of connotation, leaving nothing but the barest of bones. Sentience is generally considered a synonym for consciousness which includes self-awareness, thought, and volition. While this doesn’t exclude all species from the label “sentient,” it significantly reduces the number of considered species.

Utilitarianism.  Attackable on two fronts.  One:  that utilitarianism is even a valid ethical framework.  By utilitarian standards, one man’s organs may be harvested for the good of all those who would benefit from transplants.  (Potentially hundreds of people when you consider blood and bone marrow.)  Two:  in the strictest application of utilitarianism, a few hundred thousand mice to cure a disease like HIV/AIDS is a cheap cost when you take into account projected death estimates.  Personally, utilitarianism is complete bullshit.

Marginal cases:  yeah, and?