And this was indeed the subject of a vehement defence
of Vivi- section, delivered by Professor Virchow, who thinks that it is childish to draw any distinction between the right to put animals to death, and the right to torture them. Professor Virchow, how- ever, says that he himself is no apologist for abuse; but what " abuse " is, he claims that the physiologist, and the physiologist alone, must determine for himself. ProfessorVirchow apparently holds that it is just as inhumane to deprive an animal of possible pleasure as it is to inflict on it agonising pain, a view of which we would suggest that he should test the validity by applying it to human education,—say, to the pains and penalties of school-life. As to leaving the physiologist to determine for himself what amount of anguish he may or may not inflict for a particular end, we see no more reason why he should be per- mitted to decide for himself that purely moral question, than why the officers of the Army or Navy should be permitted to decide for themselves how much torture it is legitimate for them to inflict on mutineers or disobedient soldiers. Professor Virchow is strong in physiology; he is weak in ethics.
Previous page
