Animal testing is ethical if all human benefit outweighs all animal suffering

The argument

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory. It defends that we should act in ways that bring about as much happiness as possible in the world. Disvalue consists of either suffering, that is, negative experiences or frustrated preferences. Positive value consists of either happiness, that is, positive experiences or positive preferences. We should try to maximize the aggregate sum of positive values minus disvalue. In the case of animal testing, disvalue is the animal suffering, whereas positive value is the human benefit. The human benefit may include finding new treatments for diseases or expanding scientific knowledge. The use of animals in experiments is acceptable if the value their exploitation leads to is greater than the harm it causes.

Premises

Counter-arguments

According to Peter Singer (a utilitarian philosopher), the morally appropriate action is the one that will maximize the interests of those affected. Singer argues that it is necessary to weigh any adverse effect on animals’ interests from human actions in assessing the consequences of our actions. Other utilitarianists who think otherwise have failed to do this because of species bias (speciesism). Singer suggests that the only way to justify animal testing is to maintain that species differences alone justify the harm inflicted on animals. However, this is equal to saying that differences in race or sex alone justify differential treatment among humans. Overall, Singer’s utilitarian theory diverges from the classic utilitarian theory. From Singer’s perspective, utilitarianism considers animal testing (and the suffering that it causes in animals) unethical.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Stating the utilitarian principle is not yet an argument for the position, since the same principle grounds the best-known case against animal research. Whether the position follows depends entirely on whose interests enter the sum, and the premise leaves that open. [Rejecting P2] The setup then answers that question silently and in one direction. Animal suffering is entered as a cost while animal interests appear nowhere as a value, and human benefit is counted in full — the asymmetry Singer names as speciesism, which the counter raises and the premise never addresses. "Expanded scientific knowledge" also enters the ledger without a weight, and the benefit is speculative at the moment the harm is inflicted, since most experiments do not produce a treatment. [Rejecting C] The conclusion is close to empty as stated. "Ethical when the benefit outweighs the suffering" restates the principle instead of specifying a condition, and it supplies no way of making the comparison — which is exactly what a position resting on "certain conditions" most needs.