Response to Shelby; or, a Heartfelt Discussion

Shelby Asked: "Regan writes that "All that the rights view prohibits is science that violates individual rights. If that means that there are some things we cannot learn, then so be it" (Regan 304). However, what if the things scientists would learn would help save future lives of both humans and animals?"

I think your question begins, though not necessarily, to hint at a utilitarian view of the matter e.g. "its permissible if more happiness is brought about than suffering is inflicted." And although utilitarianism is not as denotatively derogatory as I sometimes make it sound, I do think serious difficulties arise when trying to quantify happiness and suffering. But, your question was a fruitful and thoughtful one and deserves to be addressed, so I will do so absent the fetters of utilitarianism.

We have often discussed as it is often written of in the literature, the idea that human interest count more than animal interests. But, again, to what degree? Does our desire for soft hair override an animal's right to life? Perhaps then, a different phrasing is in order. Instead of an all encompassing statement of interests, a specific and more helpful basis could be established. If the basic needs of humans conflict with the needs of a nonhuman, than the preference is given to the humans.

Let us then look at the example of the rat heart, the pig heart, and the human heart. If the rat was killed for the heart, but the heart did lead to technology that will result in saving the lives of humans, than it would seem permissible, at least, that is, to me. The rat has a right to life. The human has a right to life. When two basic needs or rights are in conflict, as mentioned above, the preference, should, appropriately be granted to the human.

Of course, it is not this simple. The heart may not actually lead to applicability to humans, and we would not know that until after some extensive testing and many rats dead. What then?

Question: Many morals are determined by the results of the action e.g. 'did it save a life?' How are we to determine the rightness of testing on an animal before we do the test?