Page:The moral aspects of vivisection (IA 101694999.nlm.nih.gov).pdf/17

 means whereby it is to be obtained? Does the Good of Man justify the torture of brutes?

At this point wo are commonly called upon to recognize with profound admiration and gratitude the immense value of the discoveries said to be due to physiological experiment, and we are challenged to say whether, for example, Harvey's Circulation of the Blood, Bell's Double Function of the Nerves, and Simpson's Chloroform, were not secrets worth buying at the price of a considerable amount of animal pain? The first answer to this "tall talk" is, that not one of these great discoveries appears to have been really made by the aid of vivisection (see Dr. Macaulay's excellent "Plea for Mercy to Animals"); and that of the other reputed results of such experiments, it may be generally affirmed that they resemble the marvels said to have been wrought by the magicians of Pharaoh, who could bring the plagues upon Egypt, but remained quite powerless to cure them. Into such controversies, however, concerning the utility of Vivisection, I, for one, refuse to enter. I am quite ready to admit that benefit has frequently resulted in all ages from a variety of evil deeds—from Rapine, Perjury, Infanticide, and especially from the sacrifice of "hecatombs" of women to spare "the smallest pain" (or self-restraint) of men. But not on account of such utility do I consider robbery and falsehood, the murder of infants or the prostitution of hapless women, right or lawful. Thus I refuse even to entertain the question. Whether the torture of animals can be justified on the plea of benefit to humanity?" And for this simple reason: I do not hold the principle that "the End justifies the Means," and I am satisfied that the "Means" of Torture are morally forbidden and unlawful. Bishop Butler's grand axiom that every sentient