#74: What’s Morals? (PART 6)

【Avoiding Change】
The second type of objection usually takes the form of “We who benefit from modern medicine enabled by animal tests have no business talking about the cruelty of eating meat. It’s hypocritical.”
 
To be sure, we’ve witnessed a remarkable advancement in medical devices and pharmaceuticals. And it’s a fact that, in some cases, animal tests have aided us to confirm the safety and efficacy of new medical technology in advance of human clinical trials. 
 
However, most animal tests force live animals to undergo procedures likely to cause them pain, suffering, fear, or lasting distress. In fact, animals used in labs are deliberately harmed by injecting substances, feeding toxins, surgically removing organs or tissues, and are often killed at the end of the experiment. What’s more, mammals are largely used as test subjects because they’re considered the most similar to humans, and as such, they’re mass produced like goods.
 
In 2015 alone, at least 200 million animals including monkeys, dogs, mice, and rabbits were used and mostly killed for animal testing, worldwide.
 
Nearly year and a half have passed since the novel coronavirus suddenly changed the way we live, and 3.9 million people have fallen to this virus. Yet, when we compare the fatalities, the sheer size of the cruelty in animal testing is appalling.
 
What’s even more appalling are the massive fatalities of animals and fish killed for us to eat, as cited in the previous two posts. Below, annual fatalities are listed out for comparison.
 
【Coronavirus; 1.5 years】                      3,900,000
【Animal Testing】                                 200,000,000
【Meat-Eating Custom】            72,000,000,000
【Fish-Eating Custom】        1,200,000,000,000
 
Among the above figures, with the exception of coronavirus fatalities, we must remember that they’re likely underestimates due to slack reporting requirements imposed in most countries, as well as the fact that they’re deliberately killed by humans.
 
When we acknowledge these truths, we realize that the argument We who benefit from modern medicine enabled by animal tests have no business talking about the cruelty of eating meat is a senseless one in our right mind and all fairness.
 
It’s because this argument is simply an attempt in disguise to justify our meat-eating and fish-eating customs. And of course, it’s utterly absurd to claim that Because we already kill 200 million, it’s fine to kill additional 72 billion, and yet another 1.2 trillion. It just won’t cut it.
 
* * * * * * * * * *
 
The two broad types of objections we’ve cited in the last post and this post. The common thread running through them both is the fixed attitude of avoiding change by listing up reasons.
 
The reasons such as Animals eat other animals and Benefits from animal tests.
 
Yet, let us repeat once again that even if we have a good reason, that doesn’t make it morally correct. As we discussed of slavery in the prior post #70, Having a reason for certain action and the Moral correctness of that action are separate and unrelated. They have nothing to do with each other.
 
Truth be told, even if our fixed attitude of avoiding change compels us to list up reasons to eat meat and fish, that doesn’t alter the fact that our meat-eating and fish-eating customs are morally wrong.

Read Next: What’s Morals? (7)【We Can Reduce】
Read Previous: What’s Morals? (5)【Our Responsibility】
 
Complete Series: What’s Morals? (1)～(8)
[1]   [2]   [3]   [4]   [5]   [6]   [7]   [8]   
​
Read Theme: Morality