VIVISECTION.
[TO THE EDITOR Olt Till "SPECTATOR:] SIE,—In your article a fortnight ago on "Vivisection," founded on Professor Jevons's paper in the Fortnightly Review, you drew attention to the strange line of justification adopted in that paper, and to the alarming issues of such reasoning. it is perhaps worth observing, further, that the doctrine of Evolution, and the theories which have grouped themselves around it, have a bearing of an unpleasant character on the subject of Vivisection. It is held in many quarters that brutes are probably only a "superior race of marionettes, which cry without pain, and only simulate intelli- gence as a bee simulates a mathematician,"—and from this stand- point one can understand the apparent callousness of vivisectors. But the same philosophy which teaches this also teaches that man is in no sense "the centre of a living world, but only one amidst endless modifications of life ;" and noteworthy attempts have been made to bring the human race within the precincts of the marionette, or automatic theory, and the tendency of much recent speculation has been to take away from us what may be called our higher or spiritual nature. We are rather a better de- veloped sort of animal ; our bodily and mental processes are merely mechanical, and as for such ideas as God, a future state, or the sanctity of life, they are not appreciable by pure science, and therefore we need not trouble ourselves about them. So that one scarcely sees why the same arguments which justify the vivisection of animals, may not by-and-by afford equal justification of the vivisection of human beings. It appears to be merely a question which will prove the stronger, when the scientific man finds the "courage of his convictions ;" and as a pos- sible future victim to the thirst for knowledge on the part of medical students, I wish to put in the plea that theories, not only in reference to man, but those that would lead us to suppose that animals do not know when they are hurt, should be fairly and fully proved, before they are acted upon.
The acceptance of the doctrine of Evolution has borne fruit in two opposite directions, for while some would make brutes to be marionettes, and would found arguments on this which strip mankind of his higher attributes, the Christian conscience per- ceives that if brutes have so much of structure and habit in com- mon with ourselves, they have probably, in addition, many of those high capacities and susceptibilities which we still believe we possess, and are therefore, in a new and stricter sense, brought within the scope of our duty and responsibility.
This generation has done much to protect animals from the rough usage and cruelty of uneducated people. Cannot the same means be brought to bear against the calculated cruelty of edu- cated people, so complacently defended by Professor Jevons? Will not the ordinary laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals reach these cases? It might, at any rate, be tried.—I am, Sir, &c., T. S. B.
[The best lawyers have given their decided opinion again and again that the Cruelty to Animals Act does not authorise the punishment of those who inflict pain for the purpose of scientific- investigation.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
