THE ETHICS OF VIVISECTION. 347 



matter ? or how does the ethical question apply here ? Was the mo- 

 rality of the business discussed when nearly the whole family of whales 

 was exterminated for the sake of their oil, or whenever troops of horses 

 have been exported to engage in our quarrels and perish on the battle- 

 field ? If a horse could define his rights, would he admit the necessity 

 of his going round and round in a mill the live-long day, or dragging 

 a tram-car with the never-ceasing jangle of bells in his ears ? Would 

 the thousands of God's creatures in India approve of being called 

 " vermin," and exterminated at so much a head ? It is clear that, as 

 regards food, clothing, mutilation, or work, there seems to be no other 

 rule guiding us than " might is right." We have exercised the do- 

 minion given us over the beasts of the earth and fowls of the air as 

 tyrants. 



Now, when all this is said and admitted, we recognize over and 

 above our animal instincts a higher nature within us pity, love, com- 

 passion, and duty toward other objects ; sentiments, indeed, which 

 seem almost antagonistic to our lower life and to the proclivities of our 

 fleshly body. This higher aspiration has ever been regarded as one of 

 the best evidences of man's spiritual nature. We observe that a culti- 

 vated man is obliged to find a substitute to kill the sheep for his dinner, 

 or to employ the necessary cunning to catch his game, since he could 

 not practice deceit himself, nor nerve his arm to strip the Arctic ani- 

 mals of their skins to clothe himself. But although he does not im- 

 brue his hands in blood, and although he dismisses from his mind the 

 question of the animal's " right " to its own skin, he can not discard 

 his own animal nature by appointing a substitute to perform actions in 

 the result of which he participates. When, therefore, the question of 

 the relationship between man and animals is considered, the fact that 

 man is a killing and hunting animal himself lies at the very foundation 

 of this relationship. Where, then, it may be asked, do the higher sen- 

 timents of which I have spoken come in ? A ready answer is, that all 

 these practices toward the lower animals are admissible and necessary 

 for man's existence, but that cruelty should be avoided. This word, in 

 common use of late, appears to signify the giving of unnecessary pain, 

 but it still remains ambiguous unless the word " necessary " is defined. 

 One may gather from various writings that " necessary " is equivalent 

 to " advantageous to man " ; for example, the word " cruelty " would 

 be applicable to the case where a half -starved horse is made to 

 drag a cart too ponderous for his strength, but it would not apply to 

 the case of the same horse dragging a heavy cannon over a mountain 

 for the safety and glory of the nation. What, then, is necessary pain, 

 and what unnecessary pain or cruelty ? If necessity is construed, as it 

 is at present, to include not only the procuring of food, but man's en- 

 joyment and general advantages, it is obvious that the question must 

 have ever-varying answers. There are a few persons, vegetarians on 

 principle, who would not kill animals for food under any consideration ; 



