Aristotle On Animal Experimentation
Aristotle would indeed not approve of experiments performed on animals.
He seems
to put much emphasis throughout his writings on the similarity of
the animal and
humans. He also puts much emphasis on the fact that animals
and plants are very
different. The only thing animals lack, according to
Aristotle, that
differentiate them from humans is a mind. He says that
nutrition is shared by
all natural living organisms but animals have
perception in addition, and among
natural organisms humans alone have mind.
The mind is exclusively a human
property. However, Aristotle’s many other
examples that make animals
human-like indicate that he would not be one for
animal experimentation. When he
explains the qualities of plants, animals.
and humans, he declares that any
creature with reason will also have
perception; any creature with perception
will also have the ability to take
on nutrition and to reproduce; but the
converse does not hold. Thus, plants
show up with only the nutritive soul,
animals have both perceptual and
nutritive faculties, and humans have all three.
This means animals are
very close to humans, only lacking one step which is
reason. Also, to
distinguish animals from plants, Aristotle stresses that
perception is the
capacity of the soul which distinguishes animals from plants
and that having
a perceptive ability is decisive of being an animal. Animals
must have
perception if they are to live. He gives the example of a dog knowing
his
master, not only as any man, but "his master--the man who on other
occasions
has fed, trained, punished, and praised him(Jones, 242)." Though he
does also
show some small differences in the perception of animals and
humans,
Aristotle does focus much of his attention on the similarities
that one must
recognize. Clearly, therefore, Aristotle would not advocate
animal
experimentation.