622 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



Or suppose it to be a " knowledge of the real nature of some 

 symptom " of one of the fevers that are yearly causing in this 

 country the premature death of nearly fifty thousand people,* 

 and the knowledge gained saved the life of but one, the propor- 

 tion would still stand approved in the minds of all humane peo- 

 ple. I am aware that Miss Cobbe has said in effect, Our days are 

 numbered, and I would not have my own or those of my friends 

 spared or lengthened by the suffering of animals. This senti- 

 ment is sanctioned by no code of Christian ethics. For all nor- 

 mal, rational, and truly humane people the following statement 

 of Prof. Davis is true beyond danger of cavil. He says : " When 

 the brute's ordinary right to welfare, yielding exemption from 

 inflicted pain, confronts man's right to welfare, it (the welfare of 

 the brute) shrinks to zero and disappears." f 



In order to test the popular acceptance of this principle, I 

 actually put the following question to twenty American women : 

 " Let the suffering be any amount necessary, how many dogs and 

 cats do you feel that you would give to save the life of one human 

 being ? " Without exception, these women have answered, " I 

 would give all the dogs and cats in the world." 



Contrast with this the following sentiments from the pen of a 

 woman who is perhaps the most active agitatrix of antivivisec- 

 tion in this country. She answers as follows : " How many hu- 

 man lives which you ' experimenters ' are so anxious (apparently) 

 to prolong are really worth the time and trouble ? . . . Would 

 the world not be benefited were they allowed to pass to another 

 sphere, where perhaps the conditions would be more favorable to 

 moral and spiritual advancement ? " Such perversion of human 

 sentiment is little, if any, short of the pathological, and calls for 

 no further comment. 



Thus is seen the impossibility of separating morality from 

 utility. If the right of the animal stand in the way of human 

 use, " it shrinks to zero." If one human life can be saved, any 

 amount of animal suffering necessary is justified. With this 

 noble sentiment we thus accept the burden of proving that the 

 sacrifice of animal life has brought us knowledge by which the 

 human life has been prolonged and the sufferings of humanity 

 have been ameliorated. With this proved, it is clear that it may 

 be as much the moral and religious duty of a man to vivisect, 

 who has faith that he can advance the cause of humanity by so 

 doing, as it is his duty to preach or teach who has equal faith in 

 these occupations. We shall treat the argument for utility in 



* Compendium of the Tenth Annual Census, pp. 1708, 1709. 



f Prof. Noah K. Davis. The Moral Aspects of Vivisection. North American Review, 

 1885, p. 217. 



