Kantian theory to establish the morality around genetic experimentation of animals

Kantian theory to establish the morality around genetic experimentation of animals

This study uses Kantian theory to establish the morality around genetic experimentation of animals. While genetic testing of animals is generally viewed to be evil as per some ethics like value theory, Kantian ethics establish the significance of promoting the value of human life and preserving it, which could be through the genetic experimentations of animals. It also creates the use of deontological principles, which reject most of the assertions of utilitarianism regarding consequence as a means of establishing moral conduct.

Introduction

Genetic experimentation on animals is not a new thing, although there have been ongoing debates about the morality of the action. Over the years, medical research institutions have made use of animals as test subjects because they are non-human. These experimentations involve the genetic modification of the animals. The conditions introduced are used to gain insight into various subjects that are being studied, for instance, human disease, and treatments. Typical lab animals are rats and mice because they share many genetic as well as physiological similarities with people. Animal experiments have been constructive over the years because they have contributed to the development of medical sciences. While generic experimentations have positive impacts on the human community, the effect on animals is harmful because they are merely used test subjects, and they draw no benefits from such experimentations. A Kantian perspective is used to establish the morality of conducting genetic experiments on animals.

Ethics on Animal Experimentation

Kantian ethics are sets of universal principles that apply to people regardless of the context or situation. The theory was established by Immanuel Kant, who was a German philosopher who defined the principles of the argument to be Categorical Imperative; as such, they are set by their morality and the degree of freedom that they offer (Gross and René 43). Kantian philosophy is a deontological normative philosophy; as such, it rejects the ideas presented by utilitarianism about the actions of people being rights based on the consequences. According to Kant, the motive and not the result contribute to its morality. The theory thus asserts that for people to treat others with morality, they should never treat the other people as a means for their greater end. The Kantian theory also asserts that people have a unique structure, in that they are able to think, and they are different from the rest of the physical existence forms. This is significant because, as per Kant’s thought process, if rationality were to be absent in the world, then there would be no purpose, and everything would have been vanity. The only means of maintaining such consciousness, which is only visible in human society, is through the treatment of all people as ends and the ends of themselves.

The approach used by Kant is somewhat stringy because it demands virtue to be universal. An action such as stealing is considered to be wrong regardless of the situation that drove the other person to steal because, by stealing, another person, the owner, is deprived of their property rights. Actions such as murder, similarly, are wrong even in the case of self-defense. One of the core values that Kantianism emphasizes is respect. Unlike other values like love, it does not discriminate. Provided that an individual is human, the theory asserts that they deserve respect. The Kantian theory is, therefore, about duty, and since people are rational, unlike other animals, they have the freedom to choose their actions (Donaldson 841). For all actions that people undertake, reason needs to lead rather than follow. The concept of universalization is applied in the moral law, and according to Kant, this principle should be used to guide the actions of individuals and to determine the universality of action, one should be able to ask themselves, what if all other people engaged in the action that they are about to participate in. By applying universality without being inconsistent, the categorical imperative is established as it determines whether an action is moral or not.

If deontological ethics, as provided by Kantian ethics, are to be considered in the context of conducting genetic experimentation on animals, then it is considered morally appropriate to conduct the experiments animals (Cornett et al. 101). One of the duties of the medical field as a whole is the duty to care. Expert approaches and practices are expected to be applied in the medical field to ensure the wellbeing of people. Legally, healthcare givers would be charged for negligence by abandoning their duty to care or failing to provide care to patients when they need it. This means that all resources that could be used to ensure such a duty is achieved need to be used as a means of fulfilling this duty. One of the means of accomplishing such a duty is conducting genetic experiments on animals to determine a medical procedure that would be most effective to a patient in certain circumstances. Genetic experimentation on animals is thus morally acceptable as per deontological principles of Kantian ethics because by conducting such medical experiments, the duty to provide healthcare and ensure the safety of patients is established.

Kantian ethics further asserts the significance of rationality of people. Kant feels that if people were just like the rest of the species, without any form of rationality, then the universe would be a waste. If such thinking is applied to the experimentation of animals, it would mean that this is the morally right action. It would be morally wrong, according to Kantian ethics, to let other people die, yet people have the capacity to develop a treatment to deal with the condition. By failing to conduct medical experiments even though it means the use of animals as test subjects, what Kant implies about a world without meaning would be fulfilled (Donaldson 841). It is the rational nature of people that contributes to the true meaning of life, and where people fail to use their rationality to offer solutions to the universe, they end up being like the rest of the species who are just like people, physically, but lack a functional brain that can be used to solve challenges in the society. Kantian ethics thus suggests that it is critical for people to use their rational nature, to offer answers to the questions that the universe presents, even if the issue at hand is like one of conducting genetic experimentation on animals.

The research conducted by Filip et al. notes that animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and test the safety of other products that contribute to the morality of human life (83). Ethics theory, on the other, had rejected this argument as it highlights that animals, just like humans, are essential. If considered from the Kantian perspective, it would be ethically wrong to let people die, yet a solution can be developed through different means. The arguments that the study gives in favor of the experimentations conducted in animals human benefits are gained, which would not have been achieved through other means and that there are methods used to minimize the suffering of the animals. The arguments against the animal experimentations are that some of the benefits that are likely to be drawn are not proven, and in many cases, the experiments conducted cause pain on the animals. If the harm and benefits highlighted were to be analyzed as per Kantian ethics, conducting the test is a morally upright action because categorical imperatives apply. For health freedom to be achieved, reason needs to be used, and where there is no freedom, there is no morality. Kantian ethics thus suggests that conducting genetic experiments on animals is a moral action because it issues liberty to the human race owing to the application of reason in the medical research field, which contributes to a better quality of life.

One of the most recent ventures in genetic experimentation is the quest to understand COVID-19. One of the persons on the frontline of the experiment is Professor Edward Holmes, who is an evolving virologist. The professor has been working with other scientists in China and around the globe to break down the genetic code of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19 and after that, finds an effective vaccine (University of Sydney par 2). Such experimentation means that the viruses are to be monitored and prevented from possible transfer from animals to humans. Since COVID-19 belongs to the zoonotic diseases category, a need to understand who the disease was transferred from animals to humans was established. Further, as a means of creating an understanding of the condition, experimentations are to be conducted on animals, given that the diseases began with animals. Holmes mentioned that the roles that pangolins played in the SARS-CoV-2 emergence, which leads to COVID-19 in humans, were still unclear based on the experiments conducted on them (University of Sydney par 5). The experiment, however, revealed that some of the viruses that the pangolins had in some of their genomic areas, had a close resemblance to those that humans had. The receptor-binding domain showed that the virus was able to attach itself to the human cells and then form an infection.

Conducting genetic experimentation on animals, in this case, is the only ethical and moral thing to do if Kantian ethics are applied because there is no other way the experiments could have been conducted as the disease was first transmitted by pangolins. Deontological principles that Kantian ethics assert use in this case because organizations like WHO have declared the condition a global pandemic. By failing to honor healthcare duties to develop a solution to the worldwide pandemic, morality will have been neglected. According to Professor Holmes, it was apparent that wild animals carry many coronaviruses that could emerge in the human populations even in the years to come (University of Sydney par 7). A moral thing that needs to be done, therefore, is to establish a vaccine that would prevent the occurrence of another outbreak. Samples that were taken from Wuhan wet market where the virus was traced to have originated revealed that the cases that emerged from the first patients were from the wet market. To assist in developing a solution for this condition, which is now a global pandemic, animal test subjects are critical as leads cannot be developed by merely studying the virus development in the human body.

Kantian ethics assert that in the pursuit of a goal that is predetermined, hypothetical imperatives will be independent of morality. This means that in every situation, regardless of a person’s goals and inhibitions, universally acceptable actions should be adhered to. This suggests that the idea can be acceptable only if it can be applied to everyone. The quest for medical solutions applies to every person, which means that it would be morally upright to conduct genetic experiments animals because it would be universally acceptable (Ghasemi and Ahmad 36). Failure to conduct a test experiment and develop drugs and other solutions to challenges in the universe, on the other hand, would universally be unacceptable because it would mean that the lives of billions of people would be placed at risk because a few members of the society choose to play their role and develop a medical solution. One of the examples that Kant uses is cheating in an exam. According to the moral principles he has established, it is immoral to cheat on a test. The duty to humanity, just as in the case of the test needs to be applied in developing medical solutions, which means using animals as a means to provide a solution to the human medical field challenge.

According to Donaldson, Kant perceived self-improvement as well as self-preservation to be an obligation that cannot be debated (842). Human beings as a species, thus, have a duty to contribute to the preservation of human life as well as contribute to the improvement of life. Being unproductive, as Kant mentions, is one form of self-destruction that is inherently immoral. The statement made by Kant thus implies that failing to conduct genetic experiments on animals in itself is immoral. It is the simplest form of self-destruction that Kant asserts because all the efforts to minimize the suffering of people would have been ignored. If an infectious disease were to attack the human population, it would imply that the possibility of the entire human population being wiped out is high as insufficiency in the care for the condition, as well as its management, will have been created. Genetic experimentations on animals are critical; therefore, in light of preserving human life and need to be also done as a means of improving the quality of life through the development of drugs. Kantian ethics in this context uphold some of the arguments that utilitarianism asserts, in that the consequence of an action is to yield happiness for it to promote morality. By using the experiments to improve the life that people have, happiness is established, which as per utilitarianism, is upholding morality, and similarly, as per Kantian ethics, it is the promotion of freedom, which is a moral action.

Conclusion

Kantian ethics establish the morality of conducting genetic experiments on animals. Failing to conduct tests on animals, it would mean that new drugs and treatment methods would not be tested and they would be directly applied to humans. It can be accepted that animals, just like people have rights, however, if it is a matter of life and death for either of the species, it would be morally wrong to let people die while animals live because people belong to a superior species due to their other make-up; rationality and spirituality. Human beings play a significant role in establishing the balance in the universe, due to their rational nature, because a literal examination of the case is that, if animals were to develop complications, human beings would work together to create a solution to the problem. If the reverse were to be applied, people would die because animals have no intelligence as that of people; thus would not offer anything to add to the quality of life of humans or aid in the preservation of the lives of other species.