In the face of modern science, researchers are facing a problem of the level to which the humanity of their approaches must extend. When it comes to solving ethical dilemmas, the vast majority of them tends to be concentrated on value placed on lives of humans as opposed to the value placed on lives of animals. There is a distinct separation between those who believe that animal drug testing should be banned, those who believe that it is often the main way of estimating the safety of drugs used, and those who choose to fall in-between and prefer finding a some sort of a middle ground.
However, there is definitely a difference in approaches taken when it comes to deciding upon the ethics of drug testing made on humans as opposed to drug testing made on animals. It seems as if the choice of whether animals should be used in a certain experiment is made much more complicated by the fact that animals are unable to speak for themselves, and therefore researchers have to make estimated assumptions in order to substitute the absence of free choice in animals that human volunteers would have possessed if they were used as a subject of testing.
When it comes to drug testing made on humans, the issue is very clear and well established. If there is, to say, and existing protocol, which might in its process help to save lives of millions of people, and for it to be tested it requires a certain number of people volunteers, there is rarely a particular issue of finding such volunteers. After all, if a protocol has been created in the first place, it means that there is a need in it, and therefore there are people with certain medical conditions to whom this protocol might be their only chance, and thus they will be willing to undergo its procedures in hopes of improving their health status. In such case, what they need to do is to listen to whatever the head of that research team has to say about the protocol, which means becoming aware of all possible consequences whether they be positive or not, to make an estimation of those consequences and, finally, to make a sensible decision derived from those estimations.
In a situation like that, the only thing required from the research team is to be open about every particular detail that is necessary for making such decisions, and to answer all questions openly and sufficiently – this would be the mark of a diligent and benevolent scientific approach.
The very idea of making such decision is virtually impossible, as it is impossible to define a moral value of any being: how can it possibly be that this living breathing creature holds more value than that leaving breathing creature? However, it does seem that in many cases for science to progress, such decision has to be made, and the outcome of it must be somewhat similar to having a human being superior to an animal being, which means that it must be acceptable to potentially cause some harm to a group of animals in order to save lives of many people in the future.
With that said, it is still required to follow some conditions on behalf of animals. These conditions are secured with the three Rs: reduction (of the number of animals used by improving the experimental techniques), refinement (animals have a good treatment so their possible suffering is reduced or softened), replacement (animals are never used in case there is a fair substitution in performance of such experience).
Evidently, humans hold very little ability to make such estimations on behalf of animals as they do, for instance, on behalf of themselves. If a certain individual is well informed about everything concerning the protocol they are willing to go under, they have a power and freedom to choose how to behave with their own bodies, health and overall well-being.
However, when the choice has to be made for someone (in this case, for those animals used in research), the issue multiplies itself to the extent of not having a right answer at all: no matter which choice it made, there will always be someone hurt – either animals used for an experiment, or humans that might have benefited greatly if that drug was tested on animals, approved for further testing on humans, and then released in public officially.
The Moral Dilemma of Surveillance
Privacy of a human being is one of the most important aspects of their freedom. However, with their freedom in mind, and with the cover of privacy, people sometimes tend to overestimate and stretch their abilities and their rights regarding lives of other people. To put it differently, with the complete privacy there is often a certain extent of danger that someone (or some group of people) will feel safe enough to do some harm to the others. In this case, the very idea of privacy should be bent in order to provide public safety. Yet, the notion of bending the boundaries of privacy can also be corrupted and result in its complete and unauthorized invasion, which will potentially harm individuals. This present essay is rather a compilation of answers to whether the idea of privacy should or should not be bent in some particular cases.
The morality of surveillance in order to make sure that people stay within the borders of law is questionable for several reasons, and has to have some concrete conditions. Cameras must be installed in places where there is a particular danger of safety being compromised in order to ensure it not being compromised after all. However, installing such cameras in the privacy on someone’s home is a large stretch.
Surely, it might be argued that in this way, no one would have a chance to create a bomb in their garage, which they will plant eventually in a local retail center, but this argument can be contradicted. If a man or a woman for that matter want strongly to make a bomb and plant it, no camera in the whole world would help the case.
People are very smart creatures, and they tend to get whatever they want, especially if that something is malicious and/or prohibited. Therefore, it is important to have surveillance in places where crime could be expected (in banks, shops, offices etc.), and it is completely unnecessary, and moreover, useless in the private locations (cars, houses, garages and so on).
Speaking about surveillance that would prove morality is like speaking about a set of conditions that proves the validity of religious faith. Firstly, the notion of morality is wide; each person has his or her own opinions upon it. Of course, the talk is about morality and not about breaking the laws – this topic has already been covered.
If some woman decides that it is moral to have sexual relationships before the marriage, she has a full right to have them. Religion was not an accidental choice for the comparison: various faiths do indeed tend to unify people under some common notion of moral, which does indeed prove the fact that everyone behaves similarly and obeys the same set of rules.
Such approach would definitely underestimate the importance of individuals, and most certainly would not work for all humans, because there are just too many views and opinions that contradict and thus make it nearly impossible to make everyone fall in the same boundaries.
This question is particularly sharp with those people, who are often in the public eye: politicians, actors, singers, news anchors and so on. Jeff Greenfield, Media Analyst in ABC News, had a rather interesting opinion on the matter: “Everybody in the public eye to one extent or another has made a Faustian bargain: when you come into the public arena you are achieving enormous fame, in some cases, enormous money, enormous power over other people, and the return for that is, [that] you are giving up your privacy” (Deutsch, D., 1987). With such approach, it seems almost as if someone decides to be famous, they are immediately stripped of one of those important aspects of being human.
Should this be a case or not is a matter of the situation. If a certain candidate for presidency has, for instance, expressed their opinion in favor of normality of female sexual abuse, this must be voiced. As proven by some previous experience, this might not have any impact on the election at all, but at the very least people have a right to know whom they are voting for.
However, surveillance would not have helped in such a case, because as people must be legally aware of the fact that they are under surveillance, they would never do or say things that they would have said or done if sure that no one was watching. This does not change the issue of morality; it changes how much of it is on the surface. Besides, it is being left without a possibility of doing something immoral what makes people so angry, even if they never wanted to use this possibility in the first place. After all, what is unattainable is what is the most desirable.
Speaking about the issues of health and happiness in the matter of surveillance is not very productive. Health is more of a choice in any developed society. After all, everyone can decide for themselves whether they want a fresh apple or a load of cocaine – the second variant if of course illegal and exaggerated, but it is still a matter of choice. As for happiness, it is impossible to make sure everyone is happy. Happiness is like morality, it is personal to the extent of being indeterminable.
In the end, when a question rises about making decisions about purposely invading someone’s personal life, it is the most proper to listen to the advice given by Senator of Wyoming Alan Simpson: [Ask yourself], how would it feel if it happened to me as a human being – you’d make some progress” (McFadden, C., 1987). In all topics concerning the morality of privacy each has to be looked over closely and individually, without making any attempts to have a one unifying way, as even mere thoughts of creating such way are doomed for failure.
Works Cited
Deutsch, D, dir. “The Human Experiment”. Ethics in America, Lecture 9: Module 6. Recorded on February 14, 1988. Uploaded to YouTube by Thomas Edison State University, 29 March 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=q274erjtGTY.
Deutsch, D, dir. “The Politics of Privacy”. Ethics in America, Lecture 11: Module 6. Recorded on November 11, 1987. Uploaded to YouTube by Thomas Edison State University, 29 March 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2fBO_NY4Us.
McFadden, C, ex. prod. “Politics, Privacy, and the Press”. Ethics in America, Lecture 10: Module 6. Recorded on November 11, 1987. Uploaded to YouTube by Thomas Edison State University, 29 March 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L5i6D_S3Ik.
