This blog post examines the necessity and ethical issues surrounding animal testing, focusing on the balance between human benefit and animal rights.
I once encountered statistics stating that only about 14% of animals used in experiments survive the procedures. Due to this undeniable sacrifice, debates over the utility and justification of animal testing have persisted since ancient times. So, is it truly ethically justifiable to pursue human benefits by sacrificing animals in experiments?
To be blunt, I believe animal testing itself is not inherently ethically problematic. The ultimate goal of animal testing lies in human progress. It aims to prove scientific facts about humanity and life through experimentation and apply these findings to improve quality of life. However, is it ethically correct to sacrifice non-human species for human benefit? To state my conclusion upfront, I believe that ‘the act of sacrificing other species to gain benefit’ itself is not ethically problematic.
Consider human meals, for example. Humans also sacrifice other living beings for survival. While this is an essential act for survival because humans are not autotrophs, survival itself is one of humanity’s fundamental needs. From the perspective of fulfilling human needs, I see little fundamental difference between the ‘desire for inquiry’ through animal testing or the ‘desire for comfort’ through improved quality of life, and the ‘desire for survival’ through eating – only a difference in degree.
Here, there is a point that must be addressed. Is it ethically right to sacrifice another being to satisfy one’s own needs? How much of an ethical difference is there between killing a human and killing an animal? On this, I believe that while this is a legal and ethical problem between humans, it is not a problem between humans and animals.
Before addressing the core issue of the relationship between humans and animals, let us examine the relationship between humans themselves. Humans can kill others to satisfy their desires, yet they fear their own death. This mindset is universal, leading humans to form ‘societies’ with others who share this perspective and establish mutual conventions. When there is a significant disparity between the benefit x gained from an action A and the harm y suffered when others inflict A upon oneself, a ‘law’ prohibiting this is created. For example, in the case of murder, the harm suffered when one is killed far outweighs the benefit gained from killing another, leading to its strong prohibition.
On the other hand, when the difference between benefit x and harm y is small, or when justice is too ambiguous to prohibit by law, a social convention called ‘ethics’ applies. Violating ethics carries no legal punishment, but it results in harm like pangs of conscience or condemnation from others. In such cases, both benefit and harm are generally small, making it difficult even for law-abiding individuals to adhere to all ethical standards.
Fundamentally, humans are considered to have consented to their society’s laws and ethics from birth. While it would be ideal for individuals to rationally decide whether to accept social conventions, it is practically certain that all humans will accept them. Thus, they automatically become members of society and comply with the law. In this process, harming others for personal gain becomes legally and ethically problematic among fellow humans.
Therefore, in this essay, I will define ‘ethics’ as the norms that prevent humans, as members of society, from harming other humans. But does ‘members of society’ truly include only humans? This must be clarified to discuss the ethical issues of animal experimentation. I believe it is impossible to include animals as members of society for several reasons, and thus, it is correct to limit members of society to humans.
The first reason animals struggle to be included as members of society is that humans are heterotrophic organisms. That is, humans cannot sustain life without the sacrifice of other species. If all animals were considered members of society, humans would become physiologically incapable of even basic sustenance and would starve to death. Even if only non-edible animals were retained as members of society, this would be problematic because standards vary between individuals, and discriminating against specific animals seems unreasonable. For this reason, most nations clearly distinguish between humans and animals, limiting society’s membership to humans alone and applying relatively lower standards to animals.
The second reason is that all living beings prioritize in the order: individual → species → nature. Any living being prioritizes its own life first, then the survival of its own species, and finally considers other species. Even if exceptions exist, the fundamental way of thinking follows this sequence. The six characteristics of life—metabolism, stimulus and response, homeostasis, reproduction and heredity, development and growth, adaptation and evolution—all prioritize the preservation of one’s own life or the survival of one’s species.
Finally, humans are uniquely altruistic and rational. Altruism is a rare phenomenon in nature; the altruistic behaviors of bees or some birds stem from kin selection and thus differ from human ‘altruism’. Furthermore, while other animals make judgments based on simple external reactions, experiences, or pleasure, humans base their judgments on deep reasoning. Rational thought and altruism are the major differences that distinguish humans from other animals.
For these reasons, animals cannot be included as members of human society, and therefore, using animals to pursue human interests through animal experimentation is not considered ethically problematic. This is viewed as being on the same level as humans consuming animals to satisfy their survival instinct (appetite). From the perspective of ‘human development and the fulfillment of desires,’ it is essentially no different from eating.
However, there are counterarguments to this. One position holds that since animals also feel emotions and pain, treating them cruelly or causing them suffering during experiments is ethically problematic and should be avoided. They regard humans and animals as equal in the sense of being ‘living beings’ and argue that pain humans would not want should also be avoided for animals.
I wish to present two counterarguments to this. First, it is incorrect to view humans and animals as equal solely because they are ‘living beings’. Although both humans and animals are living beings, including animals as members of human society is a logical leap. If all animals were included as members of society, even basic feeding would become a legally and ethically wrong act, making society unsustainable.
Second, there must be a strict distinction between ‘animal testing’ and ‘the methods used in animal testing’. I believe animal testing itself is not an ethical problem, but ethical issues can arise depending on the experimental methods used. For example, an experiment that painfully heats a live mouse can create victims not only in the suffering mouse but also in people who hear about the experiment and become outraged. While the animal’s suffering exists outside human societal conventions, the experimental method that causes suffering to people can become an ethical problem. In other words, ‘animal testing’ itself is not problematic, but ethical issues can arise depending on the method.
To reduce the ‘ethical problems of animal testing,’ the ‘3R principle’ can be adopted. The 3Rs stand for: ‘Replacement: Avoiding animal testing if alternative methods are available,’ ‘Refinement: Designing experiments to minimize the suffering animals endure,‘ and ‘Reduction: Minimizing the number of animals used in testing.’ Conducting experiments according to these principles can minimize harm to sentient beings.
Another counterargument is that animals think through emotions and experiences similar to humans. For example, observing domesticated animals or pets becoming tame and showing affection to their owners leads to the position that they think like humans. However, this logic is not valid. Just as human experiences and reactions cannot be reduced to mere feelings of pleasure and pain, animals also act based on instinctive responses rather than deep thought. Only humans engage in ‘rational judgment’ involving profound thought and emotion, which serves as the basis for considering humans as members of society.
In conclusion, I believe animal testing itself poses no ethical problem if it is conducted for the benefit of humans.
