Expert: Robin Flynn - 12/8/2007

Question
What do you think of Peter Markie's justification of exploitation of non-human animals?

Markie writes that "some of the ways, we use nonhuman animals to promote our own welfare in research and agriculture are morally permissible" unlike human infants and severely disabled people who "are not in their fully developed moral state. Insofar as we do not honor the duties essential to the claim rights they would have in that state, we take improper advantage of that fact."
"Even animals cognitively equivalent to human infants and severely disabled people are in their fully developed moral state."

"This difference inmoral status is not due to amere differencein species, however. On the one hand, human infants and severely disabled people have not fully developed their moral potential."
"We have a duty to respect their immaturity or disability by protecting those interests they would otherwise be able to assert against us. On the other hand, animals that are cognitively equivalent to human infants or severely disabled people are fully developed."

Peter Markie "Respect for People and Animals" (published in The Journal of Value Inquiry 38: 33–47, 2004.)

Answer
Hi Latvian,

I am unfamiliar with the cognitive nature of humans and  animals and I am not familiar with Markies work however from this statement I would disagree that using animals for research and agriculture for human benefit is acceptable. I’m not sure what context this paragraph is taken from but I agree that we should respect all creatures, animals, and young and disabled humans. I would question Markies moral argument.  Simply put I believe it is wrong to torture, mutilate, murder, vivisect and boil alive all animals. Based on common physiology and behavior, it is safe to say that non human animals experience fear when their lives are threatened, pain when their bodies are mutilated, and boredom and frustration when caged for long periods of time. Nonhuman animals show they value their lives and freedom by their struggles against being caged, mutilated, and killed. Depriving them of life or freedom harms those in many of the same ways that humans are harmed when deprived of life or freedom. Because of these facts I am against using animals for what some humans believe is a benefit. I feel it is morally wrong. Not only do we subject animals to horrific torture but some scientists test animals under the guise that we are helping humans. In actually we are harming humans because of the Biological differences. Therefore, it is morally wrong for both animals and humans.

For the Animals,
Robin