"Vivisection" by C.S. Lewis

Questions that the author attempts to answer:
1. What are some of the holes in the arguments of both sides of the debate on vivisection?
2. Is human life more important animal life?
Question for the author?
3. What do you believe is the status of humans in the animal kingdom and does the Bible affect your belief?

Throughout our anthropology, we grown accustomed to this idea of the superiority of man over animal.  We have domesticated animal for humans, we use them for sources of entertainment, and they constitute a great majority of our food supplies. In addition, with the dawn of the scientific revolution in the 18th century, animals have been used in experiments. Vivisection refers to the scientific experimentation on living animals. In his piece "Vivisection", author C.S. Lewis discusses the arguments of the proponents and those against vivisection. He shows the justification of both sides and then rebukes them; however it can be concluded that Lewis is in favor of vivisection from his belief that man is more important than animal.

            After presenting the theological argument that man is more important than animal, Lewis presents the "naturalists" with no theological background. He describes them as individuals "who will most contemptuously brush aside any consideration of animal suffering if it stands in the way of research will also, on another context, most vehemently deny that there is any radical difference between man and the other animals" (226). Lewis points out the hypocrisy of the naturalists who experiment on animals in the name of science that only really benefits humans. He feels we should not hold animals in captivity to research them and their behavior just so we can have a great understanding of these animals. This way of thinking is very similar to the religious idea that man is more important than animal since they are subject to our research.

            Lewis believes that the perception that animal is inferior to man must be in place or dangerous consequences could ensue. If that is abandoned, then why not experiment on men that we could consider inferior, such as "imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists" (227). This leads to s slippery slope in that the definition of inferiority becomes subjective in the eyes of who wants to do the experimentation on the men that they considered inferior. Nazis could experiment on non-Aryans, colonizers could experiment on slaves from Africa. Lewis argues that there is an innate relationship between humans in that we are also the same species. We should respect it. I do not believe that Lewis does not have any empathy towards animals, he just has a utilitarian view that the well-being of the human race is of the upmost importance.