There is a classical argument against animal research that surfaced in a recent conversation with Robert C. Jones. It is a thought experiment that can be traced back to science fiction work in the 50s, although its exact origin is unknown.
The story involves the landing of an aliens on Earth. Robert calls them “The Gorgons.”
The Gorgons are an extremely advanced civilization only a few light years away from Earth. It is nearly impossible for humans to grasp the vast cognitive gap that separates our species. Suffice it to say, our most magnificent cities are to them as ant mounds are to us. Our artistic masterpieces are to their sophisticated senses as dull and mundane as a blank wall is to our eyes. They consider our greatest achievements in mathematics and physics nothing more than child’s play.
The Gorgons also have a deep scientific interest in learning about the nature of the Universe. It is not surprising that, upon landing on Earth, they debate the use of humans in harmful invasive experiments as a means to learn more about aspects of galactic biology.
Would such experiments be ethically permissible?
What would a Gorgon think?
In order to answer the question we need more information than a statement about the Gorgons’ intellectual superiority.
Namely — Do the Gorgons have a moral society?
Perhaps not.
Perhaps the Gorgons are like the Borg in the Star Trek series — a race of cybernetic organisms designed to adapt and efficiently assimilate any other civilization they encounter, but considerate enough to warn their victims that “resistance is futile”.
An amoral, technologically advanced civilization (the Borg) attempts to assimilate humans.
The Borg is capable of acquiring the technological knowledge of other civilizations, but incapable of absorbing any of their moral principles. There is no doubt the Borg is highly intelligent and technologically advanced. There is also no doubt that the Borg is amoral.
The Borg sees the assimilation of a civilization as neither right nor wrong — assimilation is simply what the Borg does. It is its nature. The same is true for a lion killing a gazelle. The lion has no concept of his killing being right or wrong — that’s just what lions do.
If the Gorgons are an intellectually advanced but amoral civilization (like the Borg), then the question “What would a Gorgon think about harmful human experimentation?” is meaningless. Gorgons are simply unable to pose themselves such question and we cannot answer for them. What is certain is that if we were to run into amoral Gorgons the result would be the same as if we were to run into the Borg… or a hungry lion for that matter.
Of course there is another possibility. The Gorgons may happen to be a race with moral principles. In this case, one may argue the inferior intellectual capacities of our species would not be as important to them as the fact that we are share basic moral principles, such as the golden rule.
Basic rules of reciprocity among moral agents are expected to be shared among intelligent, rational life in the universe. If the Gorgons are a moral society, we would expect they will recognize us as one too and treat accordingly under the self-evident (and now expanded) principle that:
“All moral agents in our universe are created equal…”
This is a natural outcome in many fictional encounters with other worlds we read about in the science fiction literature, where different versions of a “prime directive” are at work — a binding principle of non-interference by humans with other less developed cultures and civilizations.
If mere humans can concoct such a prime directive, it is difficult to see how the more advanced, intelligent, rational and moral Gorgons would fail to reach the same conclusion. No; a moral Gorgon civilization would not experiment on a moral human species.
But lets consider for completeness the remote possibility that the Gorgons will actually be a malevolent species and attack Earth in what develops to be an Independence Day scenario.
Here, Bernard Williams, wrote there is only one question left to ask.
Which side are you on?
[...] hopes for self-improvement can lie dangerously close to the risk of self-hatred. When the hope is to improve humanity to the point at which every aspect of its hold on the world can be justified before a higher court, the result is likely to be either self-deception, if you think you have succeed, or self-hatred and self-contempt when you recognize that you will always fail. The self-hatred, in this case, is a hatred of humanity. Personally I think that there are many things to loathe about human beings, but their sense of their ethical identity as a species is not one of them.”
*I thank Robert C. Jones for pointing out the science fiction story “To Serve Man” and the work of Bernard Williams and Hugh LaFollette on this topic.
