Ethical dilemma: Whose life is more valuable? - Rebecca L. Walker

Summary

The script discusses the ethical dilemma of using animals, particularly primates, in research to combat the potential threat of weaponized smallpox. It explores the concept of moral status and the varying perspectives on the value of life, questioning whether human lives inherently hold more moral weight than those of animals. The script challenges the viewer to consider the balance between scientific advancement and the moral implications of animal testing, especially when the outcome is uncertain.

Takeaways

• 🌐 Smallpox is a historically deadly disease that has been eradicated for over 40 years but concerns remain about its potential weaponization.
• 🧬 The smallpox virus samples still exist, posing a risk that could be exploited by rogue actors.
• 🛡 Due to the lethal nature of smallpox, modern antiviral drugs have not been tested against it, and older vaccines have serious side effects.
• 💉 The US government is funding research to improve treatments and vaccines for smallpox, highlighting the ongoing concern about the disease.
• 🐒 Labs are using humanity's closest biological relatives, such as monkeys, as research subjects due to ethical restrictions on human exposure to the virus.
• 🤔 The script raises an ethical dilemma about whether it's right to harm animals for the sake of protecting humans from a potential threat.
• 📚 The concept of 'moral status' is introduced as a philosophical tool to consider the value of life, both human and non-human.
• 🔄 Moral status is traditionally binary, but some philosophers argue that it comes in degrees, with humans having the highest degree.
• 🤝 Utilitarianism suggests that the capacity for suffering is a criterion for moral consideration, which could include non-human animals.
• 🧐 The script challenges the reader to consider the moral implications of sacrificing animals in research, especially when the outcome is uncertain.
• 🔢 The moral mathematics involved in determining the value of life and the acceptability of risk in scientific research is complex and subjective.
• 📖 The script concludes that any decision made in such a scenario should be well justified, reflecting the complexity of moral and ethical considerations in scientific research.

Q & A

What is the historical significance of smallpox?

Smallpox is historically one of the deadliest diseases, having caused significant mortality and morbidity worldwide before its eradication over 40 years ago.

Why is there still concern about smallpox despite its eradication?

There is concern because samples of the smallpox virus still exist, and there is a risk that they could be weaponized by rogue actors.

What are the limitations of current smallpox vaccines and antiviral drugs?

Older smallpox vaccines can have serious side effects, and modern antiviral drugs have not been tested against the disease, leaving gaps in our defense against potential outbreaks.

What steps is the US government taking to address the smallpox threat?

The US government is funding research to improve treatments and vaccines for smallpox to better prepare for any potential threats.

Why are labs using humanity's closest biological relatives for smallpox research?

It is unethical to expose humans to a highly lethal virus, so labs use our closest biological relatives as research subjects to study the disease and test treatments.

What ethical dilemma does the use of animals in research present?

The ethical dilemma is whether it is right to harm these animals for the sake of protecting humanity from potential threats, or if these animals should also be protected from lethal experiments.

What is the philosophical concept of moral status?

Moral status refers to the idea that beings with this status should have their needs and interests considered in decisions that impact them.

How has moral status traditionally been viewed?

Traditionally, moral status has been seen as binary, where a being's interests either matter for their own sake or they don't, with humans historically considered to have moral status and other animals not.

What is the utilitarian perspective on moral status?

The utilitarian perspective, influenced by thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer, argues that the capacity for suffering makes an entity worthy of moral consideration, regardless of its species.

How do monkeys' social and intellectual capacities relate to the moral status debate?

Monkeys' high social and intellectual capacities, including their ability to recognize individuals within their community and respond to inequality, suggest that they may have a degree of moral status, contributing to the debate on their treatment in research.

What complicates the moral decision-making in the context of smallpox research?

The uncertainty of whether the research will save human lives, the potential for any number of monkeys to be sacrificed for a single human, and the complexity of moral mathematics all complicate the decision-making process for a scientist in this scenario.

Outlines

00:00

🦠 Ethical Dilemma of Animal Testing for Smallpox Research

This paragraph discusses the historical eradication of smallpox and the ongoing concern of its potential weaponization. It raises the ethical question of using animals, specifically humanity's closest biological relatives, for research to develop treatments and vaccines. The dilemma is whether to prioritize human life over the well-being of these animals. The paragraph explores the concept of moral status and the philosophical debate on the value of life, including the binary view versus a graded approach to moral status. It also touches on the utilitarian perspective that capacity for suffering should be considered in moral decision-making.

05:02

🔬 Uncertainty in Scientific Research and Moral Decision-Making

The second paragraph delves into the uncertainty inherent in scientific research, particularly in the context of smallpox weaponization concerns. It questions the validity of moral calculations when the outcomes are unpredictable and could be based on 'wild guesses'. The paragraph ponders the best approach to making moral decisions in the face of such uncertainty. It suggests that while quantifying risk might be a method to aid in decision-making, some philosophers argue for a more qualitative approach. The responsibility of the scientist is emphasized, with the need for well-justified choices in the face of complex moral mathematics.

Keywords

💡Smallpox

Smallpox is a highly contagious and deadly disease that was declared eradicated in 1980 by the World Health Organization. In the context of the video, it is mentioned as a disease of historical significance due to its lethal nature and the concern that the remaining samples of the virus could be weaponized. The video discusses the ethical dilemmas surrounding the use of animal testing to develop treatments and vaccines for a disease that no longer poses an immediate threat.

💡Eradication

Eradication refers to the complete and permanent disappearance of a disease from the world. The term is used in the video to highlight the success of global health efforts in eliminating smallpox, which has been eradicated for over 40 years. However, the script also raises concerns about the potential misuse of the virus, despite its eradication.

💡Vaccines

Vaccines are biological preparations that improve immunity to a particular disease. In the video, the discussion about smallpox vaccines is centered around their potential side effects and the need for modern research to improve them, especially in light of the ethical issues related to testing new treatments on animals.

💡Rogue actors

Rogue actors in the video script refer to individuals or groups that operate outside of the norms of international law and pose a potential threat by attempting to weaponize the smallpox virus. The term underscores the security concerns that drive the need for ongoing research into treatments and vaccines.

💡Antiviral drugs

Antiviral drugs are medications used to treat viral infections. The script mentions that modern antiviral drugs have not been tested against smallpox, emphasizing the need for research to develop effective treatments should the disease ever re-emerge.

💡Ethical dilemma

An ethical dilemma is a situation in which one must choose between two or more conflicting moral principles. The video presents the ethical dilemma of using animals in research to protect humans from a potential threat, questioning the value of life and the rights of non-human beings.

💡Moral status

Moral status is a concept in ethics that refers to the recognition of an entity's interests as morally significant. The video discusses the philosophical debate about whether moral status is binary or comes in degrees, and how this affects the ethical considerations of animal testing.

💡Animal testing

Animal testing is the use of animals in experiments to test the safety and efficacy of products, including medical treatments. The video script explores the ethical implications of animal testing, particularly in the context of researching treatments for diseases like smallpox.

💡Personhood

Personhood is the status of being a person, often associated with having certain rights and moral considerations. In the video, the concept of personhood is discussed in relation to moral status, with the implication that only beings recognized as 'persons' have full moral status.

💡Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that emphasizes the greatest good for the greatest number. The script references utilitarianism to argue that the capacity for suffering, rather than rationality, should be the basis for moral consideration, thus expanding the scope of moral responsibility.

💡Moral mathematics

Moral mathematics refers to the application of quantitative methods to ethical decision-making. The video script uses the term to describe the complex calculations involved in determining the value of a life and the ethical acceptability of sacrificing one life to save many others.

💡Uncertainty

Uncertainty in the video script refers to the unpredictability and lack of guarantee that animal testing will lead to successful treatments for human diseases. This introduces an additional layer of complexity to the ethical considerations of animal research.

Highlights

Smallpox, a historically deadly disease, has been eradicated for over 40 years but concerns remain about the potential for weaponization.

Samples of the smallpox virus still exist, posing a risk that could lead to its misuse by rogue actors.

Older smallpox vaccines carry serious side effects, and modern antiviral drugs have not been tested against the disease.

The US government funds research for improved treatments and vaccines to counteract the potential threat of weaponized smallpox.

Due to ethical constraints, labs use humanity's closest biological relatives, such as monkeys, for research on lethal viruses.

The ethics of using animals in research, particularly for protecting humanity from lethal threats, is a complex and controversial issue.

Animals have been utilized in research for centuries, often at the cost of their lives, reflecting a belief in the higher value of human life.

Moral status is a philosophical tool used to consider the value of life, whether human or non-human.

Traditionally, moral status has been binary, with humans having intrinsic value and non-human animals lacking it.

Contemporary philosophers argue that moral status can be on a spectrum, with humans still having the highest degree.

Determining the criteria for moral status is challenging, with some arguing it is based on rational nature and the ability to will actions.

A Kantian perspective suggests that 'persons' with rational capacities bear full moral status, while 'things' without them do not.

Some philosophers extend moral status to many non-human animals based on their capacity for valuing their own good.

Utilitarianism argues that the capacity for suffering is sufficient for an entity to be considered morally significant.

The moral responsibility is widened when considering the capacity for suffering, which can be unsettling for some.

Monkeys, as our closest genetic relatives, exhibit high social and intellectual capacities and are capable of suffering.

Despite their capacities, the common opinion still holds that a human life is more valuable than a monkey's.

The moral dilemma of sacrificing animals for the potential benefit of humans becomes unstable when considering large numbers.

The uncertainty of scientific discovery and its potential impact on medical care complicates the moral mathematics of animal research.

The moral decision-making process in animal research is complex and may not be best served by quantitative risk assessment alone.

Philosophers suggest that moral decisions should be well justified, considering the ethical implications of animal research.

Transcripts

Smallpox is one of the deadliest diseases in history,

but fortunately, it’s 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 especially 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.

And since it’s unethical to expose people to a highly lethal virus,

labs are using humanity's closest biological relatives as research subjects.

But 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?

What would you do as a scientist faced with this very real scenario?

In many ways, 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.

However, 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.

But 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.

So where do our monkeys stand?

Our closest genetic relatives 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.