Here is an article, on Social Affairs Unit, on 16-year-old British pro-animal-testing activist Laurie Pycroft. On his blog, he lists Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking as "celebrities" he'd like to meet.
If you haven't already seen the coverage from the media who swarmed all over the Pro-Test demonstration on the 25th February, then it's my pleasure to inform you that it was a resounding success by almost all accounts; certainly by mine. People from all over the land flocked to Oxford in order to stand up for science, and members of the press came from all corners of the earth to cover it...
He definitely comes off as a huge admirer of "science." But how does loving "science" lead one to be in favor of animal testing?
(1) The underlying assumption here is that human beings are more important than animals. This cannot be determined by science -- it is a religious, philosophical, and/or metaphysical stance.
In the strictest sense, "science" is simply a value-neutral technique for investigating phenomena. You form a hypothesis, devise a test which might reject your hypothesis, run the test, publish the results...
Thus, as Richard Feynman pointed out, science only tells what is likely to happen if you do this or that. It cannot tell us what outcome we should desire.
(2) This young man is evidence that "science" is to many not simply a set of rules, but into a kind of club or religion, with in/out membership rules, and certain unprovable (and apparently inconsistent) assumptions.
Many (but certainly not all) scientists perceive "science" as supporting atheistic assumptions -- e.g. God has no role in the universe nor our thinking. Yet it is unclear, then, how we move from that position to one which favors human beings above animals. How do we conclude that human beings are actually worth more than mice, rabbits, monkeys, or single-celled animals? Is it because the scientist is human, and in control of the situation? Does that mean we accept the argument that might makes right"? Or is it that the more complex creatures have a greater "right" to live? Why?
(3) I suspect that for most atheistic scientists, the resolution to the previous question is little more than that science is what they get paid to do, and what they get paid to do necessitates animal testing. Sure, it delivers a benefit to humankind -- I'm certainly not denying that. But I doubt most could explain how they reconcile their atheism and other values with their specieism.
(Richard Dawkins, bright as he is, certainly appears incapable of doing so.)
Scientists want (perhaps need, in a religious sense) science to be viewed as something transcendental, hallowed. But it's not clear that it functions, in most senses, as anything other than another profit-motivated industry.
Animal rights activists are surely keenly aware of this. But then again, I expect they have also their own unexamined and unresolved issues which lead them to need to "speak out" for another group, usurping that group's identify and approval for their cause. That most animals would prefer not to be experimented upon is hardly controversial -- so I don't doubt that the activist really does represent the position of the animal, at least sometimes* -- but that alone hardly accounts for their position and obsession. (I'm sure most food plants would prefer not to be harvested as well, and I'm sure a bacterial infection would prefer to be left unchecked, but that doesn't mean I'm going to take "their side" of this particular debate.)
[* PETA argues owning pets is immoral, as is "exploiting" dairy cows for their milk. Yet I know some pets who were formerly feral would wouldn't go back, so PETA is clearly wrong in some cases there. Likewise, if someone told me I could either be a kept diary cow or one let loose in northern Wisconsin, I'd certainly prefer to visit the milking machine daily.]
On one hand, I admire this guy. As an admitted specieist, who believes human beings really are more valuable than dogs or mice, I am half-ashamed for not having displayed the same courage he does.
On the other hand, he's a wonderful bit of evidence illustrating how "science" is to many, who have not found "faith" elsewhere, something that functions more like a religion. Just as churches define a social group, and provide a political/social worldview and a metaphysic, so does "science". But the "scientific" metaphysic -- as I can observe it anyway -- is typically both unacknowledged and irrational, where the religious one usually is less so, and frequently neither.
In Pycroft's case, he is apparently in favor of animal testing because "science" likes it. But I don't hear him explaining why he thinks human beings are more important than monkeys, or what gives us the right to torture them to save human lives. Again, I don't hear any atheistic scientist admit and explain their pro-human prejudice, because all the non-theistic reasons tend to sound rather, um, vicious when applied broadly.
As an alternative, I believe in a God who values human beings more than other animals. That doesn't give us an unchecked license for pointless cruelty, but it does mean I'll glady see 100 monkeys killed if it means we can save 50 or 5,000 humans.
And I can adopt this pro-human, pro-science (actual science, that is) stance without swallowing potentially toxic philosophical axioms like "the more powerful creature has more right to survive" or "the more complex creature has a greater right to life" -- meaning that the powerful or intelligent are more valuable than the weak or stupid.
Correction: I originally wrote this with a mistaken notion of Laurie's gender being female! Hah! Stupid me! Hilarious mistake, though. Thanks for the correction, Varenius.
Laurie,
Well, welcome! I'm am honored you dropped by here.
An interesting post indeed, and I appreciate your admiration.
I do indeed admire your courage, and like to praise those who stand up for what they believe in, provided I can agree they stand for good, helpful things -- which I obviously think you do, on this point. Your example is laudable.
To me, science isn't a universal truth- if the scientific community says something, they may well be wrong. Science is the process of discovering the truth and the reason I support animal testing is that it helps in the process of scientific endeavor.
We completely agree on these two points, then. I also completely agree with your statement that "anything we 'know' may we be wrong", and willingness to believe whatever seems true regarding evolution.
I found this sentence intriguing:
If evolution were conclusively proven incorrect tomorrow, I would disbelieve it. The ability for evidence to change belief is what separates science from religion.
I completely disagree with you on the second point: as I see it, you are quite wrong. Example: I was raised as a Presbyterian, considered New Age beliefs and atheism for quite a while, and now am a fairly generic, non-denominational Christian.
All sorts of people change their religious beliefs; some (e.g. Karl Marx) move from theism to atheism, some (e.g. Anthony Flew) move from atheism to theism. In Flew's case, he changed his mind, he felt, because the evidence favored theism. He may be factually wrong (or right), but it is incorrect to imply there is no ability to change one's beliefs, based on evidence, in the area of religion.
Atheists are generally taught that Christians believe what they believe because they have no choice, but, in fact, many of us have been persuaded, just as in any other area of life, by the evidence.
Perhaps you mean that religions themselves are not amenable to change. While this is completely untrue on smaller matters (African Pentacostalism looks very little like New England Protestantism,, and both are dissimilar from the Eastern Orthodox) on the big points, this holds: We cannot rationally conceive, for example, of God winking into and out of existence based on a vote. If there are some universal truths, they will probably transcend generations and fashions. If you try to change one religion too far, and are intellectually honest, one must admit one ends up with a completely different religion.
But this is no different than saying "classical Darwinism cannot change": Darwinsim is defined as the production of species based on the mechanisms proposed by Darwin: random mutation and natural selection. New proposals which attempt to shore up some of classical Darwinism's weaknesses are given new names such as "Neodarwinism" and "punctuated evolution."
The only difference is that in religion, you're only toying with a few basic propositions -- Does God exist? Is he/she/it 'personal'? Is he/she/it just? -- so you tend to only have one or two possible answers for each question, and smaller resulting problem space.
The reason why I don't believe in any deity is that I have seen no reliable evidence for the existence for one. Since I lack faith, evidence is all I have to go on.
Likewise, the reason I tend to believe in theism above the ideas offered by atheists is simply because I see more evidence for a deity and biblical statements about human nature and morality than for their ideas -- when any are even offered beyond: "well, that's wrong". (It's hard to choose the moral logical/effective alternative when one side frequently won't give any counter-suggestions.)
Nobody lacks faith. We all have "faith" and make a thousand decisions each week based on some very basic, unprovable assumptions. Reason doesn't give you truth, it simply help sort out inconsistent assumptions from logically consistent ones.
For example, I can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow. Yet I plan as though it surely will. Inductive reasoning is certainly not proof, but we accept it over and over. I can't prove I'm not merely "a brain in a tank", butvit looks like this "reality" is real, so since that belief "works" (as you say) I go with it.
Likewise, though I admit we can't really prove things one way or another about "God", I notice that (JudeoChristian) theism seems to "work" far better than atheism. Theists are happier on average, regular church attenders have better health, the biblical view of humanity seems far more accurate than the ones I see from atheists (not all atheists have the same view, of course, so I must be careful about my phrasing here), so I conclude theism "works".
In fact, that's a prime criticism of theism by atheists: "Oh people just believe it because it helps them."
Also, I notice that many ardent atheists are deeply, deeply illogical. I was quite shocked by this: I was taking courses in formal logic at the time, and was stunned, as I was exploring atheism, to see how deeply illogical some of the core assumptions of famous atheists were.
This didn't disprove atheism, of course, but it certainly did deflate my earlier conviction that atheists probably had more of an edge on truth and reason than theists.
I'm perfectly willing to answer the reason why I would put myself morally above animals; because animals are unable to possess rights. Rights are a human concept...
Basicly, I hear you saying: "I have rights because I can conceive of the idea." In other words:
(a) Humans are better than animals -- e.g. have "rights" -- because humans can think and communicate "rights" to other humans. Instead of "Might makes right", you're simply formulating, as I've implied above, "Complexity makes right(s)."
(b) "Rights", in your usage, as simply a convenient fiction or communal consensual agreement. "Rights" proceed from our ability to think and communicate, and can be manufactured or conferrred -- or revoked -- as "we" please.
A few thoughts on this:
(1) If rights are simply manufactured by collective consent, then they can equally be revoked by collective consent. In other words, the state/collective is supreme.
Again, this is a horrifying construction, because it make the state or popular sentiment the ultimate judge of who has rights. If enough Germans thought Jews are not fully human, or should not otherwise have rights, then they will not have them -- that's an entirely logically consistent conclusion. Likewise, Peter Singer says we should practice infanticide and simply not believe newborns are fully human, since many newborn infants are not physically different (and he is entirely correct here) from unborn 'fetuses' we frequently hold to have no rights.
(2) An alternate assumption is the one found in the US Declaration of Independence: that certain human rights are inalienable -- that we are NOT "endowed" with them by a state or group (instead, they come from a creator), and thus that no state or group can revoke them. They are simply something we are morally entitled to, whether or not the majority agrees.
I have noticed that societies which hold assumption (1) have tended to result in massive butchery and manslaughter (the French revolution, the USSR, Cambodia, China...) -- over one hundred million in the twentieth century alone; whereas societies holding to assumption (2) have been largely beneficial. Indeed, your own use of the word "rights" was popularized by one such category #2 society. Which one "works"?
A couple more thoughts on this:
(3) If rights are simply a construction, proceeding only from our ability to conceive of them and communicate them, then how do we know animals don't have them?
For example, how are we sure that dolphins can't communicate? And how are we sure that chimpanzees or other primates can't perceive pain very similarly to the way we perceive it? How do we know they can't have hopes for the future, or feel a wish to be out of the laboratory much the way we would?
(4) And if rights are just conferred, and we can "confer" them upon animals, then what happens if one society confers them upon animals, and another doesn't? For example Spain just recognized great ape rights. Does that mean that England is now violating "rights" by doing ape experimentation?
If your counter-argument is that one nation can't confer rights to upon beings inside another, then what does that say about human rights organizations? How can we then call North Korea wrong for using Christians for experimentation?
On the other hand, I was intrigued you wrote this sentence, since I had thought of the same thing this week, indepenedently, and was planning to blog it:
If we started giving animals rights, we would have to give them responsibilities too, and they'd all end up in jail pretty quickly for failing to comprehend the concept of law.
In the typical Lockean construction, (of "negative" rights) this view is wrong:
Locke interpreted natural law as a claim to innate, indefeasible rights inherent in each individual. Both government and society exist to preserve the individual's rights, and the indefeasibility of such rights is a limitation on the authority of both.
"Natural rights" (or "negative" rights) are abilities we are all held to "naturally" possess if left alone by others, such as the ability to speak and defend property. They cannot imply -- and must not require -- a responsibility.
(There is also the idea of "positive rights" -- favored by such charming moral giants as Hegel and Marx -- such as the 'right' to food or medicine -- which require others to do things on our behalf. But they still don't necessarily imply a responsibility, although frequently have been construed that way.)
There are some things, of course, which require responsibility, but I wouldn't call them "rights" -- I'd call them part of a social contract. For example, if we want police or military protection, we must have some kind of taxation or other community participation -- even if we all volunteer to do the job ourselves.
My own typical construction is usually that with authority comes responsibility -- not rights. But then, for me "rights" are natural rights, in the Lockean sense, not the kind of "rights" Marx favored.
Of course, I agree that there's an obvious practical problem in getting animals to respect each other's rights -- for example, getting the cheetah to respect the gazelle's right to live. (It's an argument I myself use.) There are various answers to this, and counter-answers, but I don't have time at the moment...
We also have a duty to our species.
Again, why? It's a lovely assumption, but what is it based on? How do we know we only have a duty to our species, or primarily have a duty to our species? Why not say, as some do, we have a duty to "earth" or "Gaia", and perhaps even need to decrease our own numbers to foster more diversity?
I admit my own assumptions: my belief that rights are inalienable, for example, only makes sense in a vaguely theistic/deistic context. I freely admit this is a kind of "religious" assumption I am making. I simply wish my opponents to be equally clear and honest concerning the frequency and philophical impact of their own assumptions.
As I said before, we all have "faith". The only difference is in what propositions, on what evidentiary basis.
A bit out of order:
I find the concept of a deity quite ludicrous...
Why?
... and would require quite solid evidence before I would consider it a realistic entity.
There's plenty of evidence. People have all kinds of experiences of God and the supernatural -- not all of it is, in my experience, easily dismissed. Nor is it clear why we should start by trying to dismiss it all -- that's a kind of bias. (Nor should one try to admit it all either! One should start with an open mind, both ways.)
For example, Christianity is one of the largest belief systems on earth "with an estimated 2.1 billion adherants in 2001" [1] Certainly, some of those people just believe it because of their culture or tradition -- but that's also certainly not the whole story.
(There is no society on earth which forces people to believe in Christianity (can't say the same for Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, or atheism, sadly) and a good percentage of these people have paid a tremendous price to become or remain Christians.)
Imagine 1 billion people came to you and said: "When I tried X, Y seemed to result." That certainly wouldn't prove Y, or that it always followed X, but you couldn't simply dismiss that without some investigation. Hundreds of millions or even billions (who knows) have looked into Christianity, and found it was either "truer" or a better logical model than alternatives, or that it otherwise "worked" and that they had some subjective experience of an encounter with God. And studies seem to show these individuals "function", on average, better than those who reject theistic belief and/or church attendence: they have better health, longer life, a happier outlook, and even better sex lives, on average.
That's certainly not proof, but it's hardly a lack of evidence. It certainly is worth investigating with an open mind, I would think.
These two values [protecting family, protecting our species] are instilled into us through instinct and are generally regarded by society as reasonable.
Huh? I'd have to totally disagree, on several counts.
First, the most recent wave of "evidence" (rightly or wrongly) seems to indicate there's nothing "instictive" at all about marital fidelity -- and by extension, protecting one's family. As a male, I must admit my own instincts, even though I have a perfectly wonderful girlfriend, is to want to purse anything cute that walks by.
What stops me is not instinct. What stops me is what I have learned -- from my society, from my religion, from my own observations, reflections, and thoughts. In other societies, women are simply used and gang-raped. In some societies, women can easily be discarded (with their children) when they are no longer attractive or desired.
Second, I think this business of reflexively arguing: "What is instinctive is good" is foolish and harmful. Wanting to beat the snot out of someone who annoys me is instinctive. So is road rage. So is infidelity. So is theft. Animals have all kinds of other unpleasant instictive behaviors we don't want to see in society.
But it's something I often hear from people who seem to have no other justifications from their assumptions.
The logical extrapolation of being selfish regarding one's self and family is to be selfish regarding one's species...
Again, what's logical about protecting one's species? If you're appealing to what's "logical", then you're certainly not appealing to instinct: reason and instict are very different critters.
Regarding instict, I notice that all kinds of animals eat their own kind. Humans do it frequently in primitive socieities. (Are they closer to "instictive" living?) Male bears, which by some testimony are smarter than dogs, will often eat bear cubs. And likewise with many other kinds of animals.
When I visit a place like the Rocky Mountains (where I spent last week on vacation) my first instinct was to say: "Ack, get all these toursists out of here." Like many environmentalists, I wanted nature to remain "unspoiled" -- except, of course, by and for me.
There's nothing inherantly irrational about wanting to wipe out most other humans to make earth prettier. (It's not like we have to increase our numbers to repell the incoming alien invasion, Laurie.)
Also, there are xenophobes who want to remove people unlike themselves from earth. There are religious people who want to remove all people who disagree with their religion (Christianity once, Islam and atheism are classic examples in modern times), and there are societies who hate contact with people who are unlike them (the Japanese, for example).
And I know a lot of people who like their animals far more than their fellow human beings: My next-door neighbor has a bumper sticker which reads: "The more people I know, the more I like my cat." In fact, the popularity of the animal rights movement as a whole is testimony to this: There are a lot of people who cherish a bird egg more than a human fetus.
I know a man who asks people: "If a total stranger and your pet were both drowning, and you could save only one, which would you save?" The overwhelming answer he gets is: "My pet."
Certainly, you might WISH we would favor human beings over animals, but given our history of genocide against our own kind (we seldom pursue animals with the idea of wiping them out entirely), it seems you have a lot of counter-evidence you are overlooking.
It seem to me you're just making a lot of assumptions here, and that's not wrong, per se -- but you're pretending they are some sort of set of ineluctable logical conclusions. Instead, it seems to me they're just a set of assumptions who are unwilling to admit what they really are.
Again, we all have faith. The only question is in what, based on what evidence. You save you have faith in what follows from evidence, but then you make statements which seem to fly in the face of so much of it, or which seem to be fond wishes or preferences rather than unavoidable conclusions.
Again, I'm only asking that my opponents be honest (or perhaps simply clear) about their own assumptions.
Just to nitpick again: Laurie Pycroft is actually male.
Posted by: Varenius on March 27, 2006 03:35 PM