Analogy arguments, which are methods of inferring additional properties based on similarities between two objects, are used to argue for or criticize the validity and ethics of animal testing. It is important to understand the potential and limitations of these arguments.
The analogy argument is an argument in which two objects are found to be similar in some way, and when it is known that one object has an additional property, it is inferred that the other object also has that additional property. This method of argumentation has been used extensively, from the development of logic by ancient Greek philosophers to modern scientific research. Analogical arguments are common in everyday life and science because they are beneficial in that they allow us to derive new information as a conclusion from premises we already know. In particular, the argument for and criticism of the validity of animal testing on mammals for medical purposes is a good example of an analogical argument.
Proponents of the validity of animal testing using the Ubiquity Argument reason that because of the similarities between humans and test animals, the results of test animal reactions to new drugs or toxic substances can be safely applied to humans. Based on this, they argue that animal testing provides clear and important benefits to humans. For example, if a new drug is tested on rats in the development of a new drug with positive results, they expect that it will have a similar effect on humans.
The likelihood that the new information is true is called the plausibility of the analogy. To be plausible, there must be a high degree of similarity between the things being compared, and this similarity must be relevant to the new information, not just similarity in the sense of being similar. For example, advocates of the validity of animal testing argue that their analogy argument is highly plausible because the similarities that mammals commonly used as laboratory animals share with humans, such as circulating blood in a similar way and breathing with lungs, are seen as similarities that are relevant to the outcome of the experiment. On the other hand, humans and lab animals with tails do not share similarities in the presence or absence of tails, but this is a trait that is irrelevant to the experiment and can be ignored.
However, opponents of animal testing criticize the validity argument in two ways with respect to the ubiquity argument. First, they say that there are similarities between humans and experimental animals, but only at the functional level. Even if the functions of humans and experimental animals are similar, there is scientific evidence that the causal mechanisms that realize those functions differ from animal to animal. Second, by focusing on functional similarities, we are not paying attention to the functional similarities in how humans and animals feel pain. Unlike our own pain, we can’t directly feel animal pain, but we can use analogy to show that animals feel pain because their behavior, such as groaning or flinching when hit by something, is functionally similar to ours.
Furthermore, the debate over the validity of animal testing is not just a scientific one, but also an ethical one. Proponents of animal testing argue that it is essential to saving human lives and curing diseases, while opponents argue that it is unethical to cause unnecessary suffering to animals. The debate over the validity and ethics of animal testing is ongoing, which further highlights the limitations of the Ubiquitous Argument.
In short, the first criticism points out the weakness of the Ubiquitous Argument for the validity of animal testing, while the second criticism raises the ethical issue of animal testing by pointing out that animals feel pain. This is because both humans and animals feel pain, and it’s not fair to think that it’s okay to do experiments that cause pain to humans but not to do experiments that cause pain to animals. In the end, the ethical problem stems from the inconsistent use of the analogy.
The use of analogies is an important tool not only in animal testing, but also in many other academic and real-life situations. For example, in pedagogy, if a new teaching method has been successful in one school, it is logical to assume that similar results can be expected in other schools with similar environments and student characteristics. However, the differences in the environment and student characteristics of each school must be taken into account, and it can be dangerous to generalize results based on mere similarities.
As you can see, the analogy argument has a wide range of uses and is useful, but you should always be cautious in its application. You must thoroughly examine whether the similarities between your comparisons are deeply relevant, not just superficial, or you risk reaching the wrong conclusions. Therefore, when using analogical arguments, it is important to thoroughly review and analyze them to ensure that they are robust. It’s essential to examine them from multiple perspectives and analyze them with as much evidence as possible to increase their accuracy and credibility.
In the end, ubiquitous arguments are powerful tools in their own right, but their use requires thorough vetting and careful consideration. When used properly, it can help us learn new information and expand our understanding. However, we should always keep in mind that when used incorrectly, it can lead to false conclusions and confusion.
