Response to Vivisection

Quite a bit to say about this.....

Question 1: Why does the author have to come to the conclusion that the argument must centralize around the concept of pain?

Question 2: Lewis points out that we don't know if animals have souls or not, based on the Christian defender of vivisection. True, we don't know. But even if we did know, would the Christian defenders still have grounds to defend? Is this there main basis of defense? Or would it change?

Question 3: Lewis says in the text that pain "always requires justification." Whether the reader likes it or not, this is an appeal to ethos that requires the audience to agree. There is no intrinsic law of the universe that states that we must justify the infliction of pain. Although we all would agree, the philosophy remains a subjective one. In what ways could we describe an existence where pain doesn't require justification BECAUSE it ISN'T evil (besides "hell"- where even in that case the pain is justified).

Question 4: Lewis argues against the Christian defenders by saying that soulessness will actually make the infliction of pain harder to justify. He states that, based on this argument, the animals can not deserve the pain. Why is this? An animal doesn't deserve pain based solely on the reason that it doesn't know what it is? And would an animal that doesn't know what pain or evil is appreciate moral profit or compensatory happiness based on the fact that these are societal constructs that only apply to humans?

Question 5: Lewis states" the propriety of sacrificing beast to man is a logical consequence. This platform implies some sort of pious submission to a higher  being wherein the moral responsibilities of humans is eradicated. If it is a logical consequence....then why should it be an issue of ethics to begin with?


Response to either of all of those questions:

I loved this article. It touches on so many multifaceted dilemmas that we humans must encounter when deciding things on behalf of not only the nation but on humanity itself.

The author is extremely intelligent. This isn't an essay that defends an issue. This isn't an essay that supports an issue either. Rather, Lewis is compartmetalizing and breaking down any and all arguments against or for vivisection (by which he does so suasively withouth any regard to the subject matter of vivisection at all). In fact, we can see Lewis as the mediator. He evaluates the issue at hand, recognizes the elements of "the classical argument" that we discussed in class (resolving a solution with appeal to reason). Lewis aids the defenders and supporters without taking a side, for the most part. The logic in his reasoning somewhat places him on one side more or less. But let me be more specific....

One thing i would like to point out is that he concludes that there is no argument whatsoever against vivisection that does not have to do with sentiment. I. myself, can not think of any argument against it that doesn't evoke an emotional ground for debate. This is crucial to this paper because there is truth to this discovery. The only people who don't want it to happen are the ones who are emotionally more or less traumatized by it's existence. Animal lovers- if you will (not to say that participators and supporters of vivisection are not animal lovers).

Back to the specifics. Lewis concludes that we can not defend vivisection on Christian standards because we can not know which beings have "souls"- actually, let's use the word "conciousness" so as to not cross-entangle the religious affiliations. I'm not speaking of whether or not the issue of vivisection is being defended or supported. My argument here lies within the premise. Lewis regards conciousness among animals as not provable. Okay, that's no problem. But if it were? I feel as though he should have humored the idea to either strengthen or weaken the Christian defenders. In my opinion, if all animals in the world were concious of themselves, they would be promoted to the standard of "humanity"- so to speak. If they know they're feeling pain then the argument is not justified. Sounds like a simple solution to a seemingly perplexing philosophical conjecture. BUT, check this philosophy out. If animals not having concsiousness is a "mere opinion," then who is to say the fact that they feel and experience pain doesn't fall under the same category. If a rat doesn't know it's alive and isn't aware of its existence, then how is it aware of pain. Let me explain how this makes sense

Is not existence (according to Descartes' Meditations) the most basic form of truth? Isn't every single fact, belief, and opinion that we can construct throughout our entire lives (pain included-biological or not) founded upon the truth and belief that we exist? So that being said, if the first thing we can truly accept as a fact of the universe in all objectivity is that we exist, then everything that we learn afterward is founded upon that platform. So let's do the math.. consciousness=awareness of existence;
awareness of existence =every other believe founded upon this. So here is that same equation for animals: conciousness= awareness of existence. No awareness of existence, no awareness of pain."Logically" speaking, if an animal doesn't know it exists, it can't feel pain. Not to say that we do know in fact that animals can feel pain. But are they experiencing it? There is a big difference between response to stimuli and actual experience.

Funny thing is i disagree with this logic i just so adamantly argued. I do truly believe that animals feel pain. But isn't it crazy that based on Lewis debunking of the "soulesness" argument, we can logically find a fallacy in the fallacy that he finds? Maybe he never read Descartes. Or maybe i'm just extremely wrong

Last thing i want to say. Lewis says "the propriety of sacrificing beast to man is a logical consequence." To me this means that because it is a "logical" subsequent event that occurs within the nature of our existence we have no moral ties to it. Kind of like predestination. if we are predestined to go to heaven or hell, are we morally obligated to act a certain way (I know the bible has some asinine ways of compensating for that facetious jargon, but just focusing on the statement itself)? If it is a logical occurrence that we practive vivisection because we are superior (the definition here meaning ethically bankrupt from killing and harming non-human beings-no sarcasm intended) then why worry about the ethics. If the bible said we Americans are superior to the other sovereign nations, im sure as hell we wouldn't feel the slightest bit of ethical dissonance in implementing our entire culture unto the rest of the world. This statement from Lewis is just something that I feel that he should have addressed. He does, in fact, imply a sort of "obligation to not be a vivisector." But that would mean doing exactly what religion tells us to do, which is kind of like not keeping a 20 dollar bill you find on the ground. It just doesn't happen.

I do apologize for my attacks on religion though i would like to stress that the majority of my blog revolved around the philosophical and ethical elements of the article.

and if any one is interested or cares: I fully support the testing of animals for the furthering of research. No argument would change my mind. Humans have an innate obligation to get as close to the truth as possible. If it were the other way around, i would gladly volunteer myself to be tested (painful or not) to further the education of all humanity...