vivisection.ppt

vivisection C. S. Lewis The overview Difficult words and phrases Animal vivisection and human vivisection In the first paragraph, the author points out that it is not rational to discuss about vivisection since both sides can’t escape the influence of sentimentality. In the second and third paragraph, he claims that we must assume pain is an evil as a basis for the whole discussion. But this does not mean that pain should never be inflicted. However, if it is for a good purpose, it should be encouraged. In the following paragraphs, the author depicts how the Christian and naturalistic vivisectionists defend vivisection. He argues that Christian defenders’ statement that animals “have no souls” is in fact an argument against vivisection instead for vivisection. Actually, Christians’ defense lies in the superiority of man over beast as is guaranteed in the Revelation. The author believes that our superiority shows that we should acknowledge duties to animals rather than behave like vivisectors. As for the naturalistic vivisectionists, the author analyses their defense as simply a sentiment of loyalty to our species. It is this sentiment that leads to the most sinister thing about modern vivisection----the persecution of men of another race, class, party or religion, which he is strongly opposed to. In paragraph 3, “on the man whom we find inflicting pain rests the burden of showing why an act which in itself would be simply bad is, in those particular circumstances, good.” In paragraph 4, “unless we know on other grounds that vivisection is right we must not take the moral risk of tormenting them on a mere opinion.” In paragraph 6, “we may fail to see how a benevolent Deity could wish us to draw such conclusions from the hierarchical order He has created. We may find it difficult to formulate a human right of tormenting beasts in terms which would not equally imply an angelic right of tormenting men. In paragraph 6, “…with a vivid sense of the high mode in which h