Smallpox, one of the deadliest diseases in history, has been eradicated for over 40 years. However, samples of the virus that causes smallpox still exist, leading to concern that rogue actors might try to weaponize it. This is particularly worrying because older smallpox vaccines can have serious side effects, and modern antiviral drugs have never been tested against this disease. To protect against this potential threat, the US government is funding research to improve smallpox treatments and vaccines.
Since it’s unethical to expose people to a highly lethal virus, labs are using humanity’s closest biological relatives as research subjects. But this raises an ethical question: is it right to harm these animals to protect humanity from a potential threat? Or should our closest relatives also be protected against lethal experiments? This dilemma isn’t new. Animals have been used in research aimed at improving human welfare for centuries, typically at the cost of their lives. This practice reflects the widespread belief that human lives are more valuable than non-human lives.
People have different views about the ethics of animal testing and how it’s conducted. But whatever your opinion, this scenario raises an important philosophical question: how do we determine the value of a life, whether human or non-human? One tool philosophers have used to consider this question is moral status. Beings with moral status should have their needs and interests taken into consideration by those making decisions that impact them.
Traditionally, moral status has been seen as binary—either a being’s interests matter for their own sake, or they don’t. And historically, many philosophers believed that humans had moral status and other animals didn’t. Some contemporary philosophers like Shelly Kagan have argued that moral status comes in degrees, but even in this model, he argues that people have the most moral status.
Determining what grants any degree of moral status can be difficult. Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant thought humans have moral status because of their rational nature and ability to will their actions. A binary conception of moral status then suggests that beings with these capacities are “persons” bearing full moral status, while all other creatures are “things” without moral status.
However, thinkers like Christine Korsgaard have argued a Kantian view should include many non-human animals because of how they value their own good. Another line of argument, suggested by utilitarianism’s founding father Jeremy Bentham, and elaborated by Peter Singer, claims that a capacity for suffering makes an entity worthy of moral consideration. These inclusive ways of thinking about moral status dramatically widen the scope of our moral responsibility, in ways some people might find unnerving.
Our closest genetic relatives, monkeys, have high social and intellectual capacities. They live cooperatively in complex social groups and recognize members of their community as individuals. They support and learn from one another—there’s even evidence they respond to inequality. And of course, they’re capable of suffering. Yet despite all this, it’s still generally common opinion that a human’s life is more valuable than a monkey’s.
And that while killing one human to save five others is typically wrong, killing one monkey to save five humans is regrettable, but morally acceptable. Even morally required. At some point, however, this calculation starts to feel unstable. Should we kill 100 monkeys to save five people? How about 10,000? If moral status is binary and monkeys don’t have it, then theoretically, any number of monkeys could be sacrificed to save just one person. But if moral status comes in degrees and monkeys have any at all, then at some point, the balance will tip.
The situation you’re in complicates things even further. Unlike the scenarios above, there’s no guarantee your work will ever save human lives. This is true of any animal experiment—the process of scientific discovery only sometimes leads to improved medical care. But in your case, it’s even trickier! While the government is worried smallpox might be weaponized, if they’re wrong the disease will remain eradicated, and your research won’t save anyone from smallpox.
You could try to quantify this uncertainty to help make your decision. But how do you determine what an acceptable amount of risk is? And what if there’s so much uncertainty that your calculations are essentially wild guesses? These kinds of moral mathematics get complicated fast, and some philosophers would argue they’re not even the best way to make moral decisions. But whatever you decide, your choice should be well justified.
Organize a class debate where you are divided into two groups. One group will argue in favor of using animals for smallpox research, while the other group will argue against it. Use the information from the article to support your arguments. This will help you understand different perspectives and the complexity of ethical decision-making.
Write a short essay discussing the concept of moral status. Consider the views of philosophers like Immanuel Kant, Christine Korsgaard, Jeremy Bentham, and Peter Singer. Reflect on whether you believe moral status is binary or comes in degrees, and how this affects your view on animal testing.
Participate in a role-playing activity where you take on the roles of different stakeholders (e.g., a scientist, an animal rights activist, a government official, a philosopher). Discuss and negotiate a policy on animal testing for smallpox research. This will help you understand the practical implications of ethical theories.
Conduct a research project on the history of smallpox, its eradication, and the current concerns about its potential weaponization. Present your findings in a multimedia format (e.g., a video, a slideshow) to the class. This will deepen your understanding of the scientific and historical context of the ethical dilemma.
Create a mathematical model to analyze the risks and benefits of conducting smallpox research on animals. Consider factors such as the probability of smallpox being weaponized, the potential effectiveness of new treatments, and the ethical cost of animal suffering. Present your model and findings to the class. This will help you apply quantitative reasoning to ethical questions.
smallpox – a highly contagious and often fatal infectious disease caused by the Variola virus, characterized by fever, rash, and the formation of pustules that often leave permanent scars. – Smallpox was declared eradicated in 1980 after a successful global vaccination campaign.
virus – a submicroscopic infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of an organism, causing various diseases in humans, animals, and plants. – The COVID-19 pandemic is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
animal testing – the use of animals in scientific experiments to determine the safety and efficacy of drugs, cosmetics, and other products. – Many medical breakthroughs have been made possible through animal testing, but it remains a controversial practice.
ethical dilemma – a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more conflicting moral principles. – The decision to prioritize public health over personal privacy during a pandemic can present an ethical dilemma for policymakers.
research – a systematic investigation to establish facts, solve problems, or develop new theories, typically conducted through the collection and analysis of data. – The scientist conducted extensive research to gather evidence supporting their hypothesis.
vaccines – a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease, typically containing a weakened or inactivated form of the pathogen. – Childhood immunization schedules include vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, and rubella.
moral status – the ethical consideration given to an entity, such as a living being, based on its inherent value or rights. – The debate on the moral status of animals explores whether they have comparable rights to humans.
value of life – the significance or worth attributed to human existence, often in terms of quality, sanctity, or intrinsic value. – Different cultures and ethical frameworks may have varying perspectives on the value of life.
moral responsibility – the duty or accountability of individuals or groups to act in accordance with ethical principles and accept the consequences of their actions. – Healthcare professionals have a moral responsibility to provide the best possible care for their patients.
uncertainty – the state of being uncertain, lacking knowledge, or being unable to predict with complete accuracy. – The outcome of the experiment was surrounded by uncertainty due to the complex nature of the variables involved.
