This article examines whether animal testing is ethically problematic and discusses the justification for sacrificing other life for human survival and development. Exploring the relationship between humans and animals, it argues that animal testing itself is not ethically problematic, but that ethical standards should be strengthened through the 3Rs principle (replace, refine, and reduce) to avoid causing unnecessary suffering in the process.
We have all come across the statistic that only about 14% of animals used in animal testing survive the experiment. Because of this unacceptable sacrifice, the efficacy and appropriateness of animal testing has been debated since ancient times. So, is it ethically justifiable to sacrifice animals for human benefit?
In short, I don’t think there is anything ethically wrong with animal testing per se. The ultimate goal of animal testing is the advancement of humanity. It’s about proving scientific facts about humanity and life so that we can apply them to improve the quality of life. But is it ethically correct to benefit humans at the expense of non-human species? To conclude, I don’t think there is anything ethically wrong with “benefiting at the expense of other species” per se.
For example, consider the human diet: humans sacrifice other organisms in order to survive. Of course, since humans are not autotrophs, this is a necessary act of survival, but survival is also one of our basic needs. In terms of fulfilling human needs, there is no difference between the “desire for exploration” through animal testing or the “desire for comfort” through improving the quality of life and the “desire for survival” through eating.
It’s important to point out here. Is it ethically right to sacrifice another entity to fulfill one’s own needs? How different is the ethical difference between killing a human and killing an animal? I believe that this is a legal and ethical issue between humans and humans, but not between humans and animals.
Before we get to the heart of the matter, which is the relationship between humans and animals, let’s look at the relationship between humans and humans. Humans can fulfill their needs by killing others, but they are afraid of dying themselves. These ideas are universal, and as a result, humans form “societies” with individuals who share these ideas and set rules for each other. When there is a significant difference between the benefit x of doing something A and the harm y of having someone else do it to you, you make “laws” that prohibit each other from doing it. For example, murder is strongly prohibited because the harm of being killed is much greater than the benefit of killing someone else.
On the other hand, if the difference between benefit x and harm y is not large, or if the definition is too vague to be prohibited by law, social norms called “ethics” apply. There are no legal penalties for violating ethics, but there are damages, such as guilt or criticism from others. In this case, both the gains and losses are usually small, so it is difficult for even the most law-abiding person to follow all ethics.
By default, humans are considered to have agreed to the laws and ethics of their society upon birth. Ideally, it would make the most sense to ask and determine if an individual accepts the rules of society, but in reality, since virtually all humans do, they automatically become part of society and abide by its laws. In this process, it becomes legally and ethically problematic for humans of the same species to harm others for their own benefit.
Therefore, I will define ‘ethics’ in this article as the norms that guide humans to avoid harming other humans as members of society. But does the term “members of society” really include only humans? We need to clarify this in order to discuss the ethical issues of animal testing. I believe that it is impossible to include animals as members of society for a number of reasons, and that it is therefore right to limit the definition to humans.
The first reason why animals cannot be included in society is that humans are heterotrophs, meaning that we cannot sustain life without the sacrifice of other species. If all animals were considered members of society, humans would be physiologically incapable of even basic nutrition and would starve to death. Even if only inedible animals were allowed to remain part of society, it seems unreasonable to discriminate against certain animals because different humans have different standards. For this reason, most countries make a clear distinction between humans and animals, limiting the membership of society to humans only, and applying relatively low standards to animals.
The second reason is that all living things are prioritized in the following order: individual → species → natural order. All organisms prioritize their own lives first, then their own species, and finally other species. Even if there are exceptions, the basic way of thinking follows this order. The six characteristics of life: metabolism, stimulus and response, homeostasis, reproduction and inheritance, development and growth, adaptation, and evolution, all prioritize their own life or the longevity of their species.
Finally, humans are uniquely altruistic and rational. Altruism is a rare phenomenon in nature, and the altruistic behavior of bees and some birds is due to kin selection, which is different from human “altruism.” Also, while other animals make decisions based on external reactions, experiences, and pleasure, humans make decisions based on deep thought. Rationality and altruism are the major differences that separate humans from other animals.
For this reason, animals cannot be included as members of human society, and therefore animal testing for human benefit is not ethically problematic. This is on the same level as humans consuming animals to fulfill their survival needs (appetite), and is essentially no different from eating in terms of “advancing humanity and fulfilling human needs”.
However, there is a counter argument. They argue that animals have emotions and feel pain, and that cruelty and suffering in experiments is ethically problematic and should be avoided. They argue that humans and animals are equal in the sense that they are “living beings,” and that any pain that humans do not want to inflict on animals should be avoided.
I’d like to offer two rebuttals to this argument. First, it is wrong to equate humans and animals as “living beings”. Humans and animals are both living beings, but it is a logical leap to include animals as part of human society. If all animals were included as part of society, even basic food consumption would become legally and ethically wrong and society would be untenable.
Second, there is a strict distinction between “animal testing” and “how we conduct animal testing”. I don’t believe that animal testing itself is ethical, but the way it is done can raise ethical issues. For example, a test that involves painful heating of live rats may not only victimize the rats, but also the people who hear about the test and become outraged. In other words, while animal suffering is outside the norms of human society, the method of testing that causes suffering to people can be ethically problematic. In other words, “animal testing” itself is not problematic, but the method can be.
To reduce the ethical problems of animal testing, we can adopt the 3Rs principle. The 3Rs stand for Replacement: Avoiding animal testing whenever possible, Refinement: Designing experiments to reduce animal suffering, and Reduction: Minimizing the number of animals used in animal testing. By following these principles, we can minimize harm to empathetic people.
Another counter-argument is that animals have the same emotions and experiences as humans. For example, when livestock or pets are domesticated and feel affection for their owners, 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 do not think deeply but simply react instinctively. Only humans make “rational judgments” that are evaluated by deep thought and emotion, and this is what makes us part of society.
In conclusion, I see no ethical problem with animal testing as long as it is for the benefit of humans.
