Suffering

These essays on vivisection were both incredibly fascinating reads. To be quite honest, I wasn't certain of the definition of vivisection at first, but once I analyzed the word itself, I knew it meant "live dissection." The essays clearly proved this correct, but the word does not do the action justice. "Vivisection" or "live dissection" sounds very clinical and cold - very scientific and distant. But truly, it doesn't capture the horror and pain of dissecting a creature while it is living and alert to pain. It is one thing to think of surgery - surgery saves lives, improves you in some way, and most often involves pain killers and anesthesia. Vivisection does not, for chemicals tend to get in the way of these experiments.

It is simply a surgical method used on living creatures to extract information for human use.

What made both Lewis Carroll's and Robert R. Titus' essays so convincing and effective was the way in which they each presented their arguments. Both were intellectual and reasonable, combating science with more of the same. If they relied on pathos, I don't think their arguments would have held up as well, simply because we tend to give more credit to facts over opinions and feelings.

commons.wikimedia.org

a portrait of the author, Lewis Carroll

Carroll's argument against vivisection was incredibly effective for several reasons. Firstly, the way he laid it out is easy to follow - the reader sees the myth, the premise of his argument, then the reasoning behind it as he systematically attacks the idea that vivisection is not considered animal cruelty. THis method of breaking down the issue is logical and clear and therefore, more likely to convert others to his point of view.

In addition, he wrote with a very balanced opinion that many people can relate to. Carroll argues that yes, death is sometimes necessary, but unnecessary pain and cruelty is abhorrent. This is not an unpalatable standpoint for the majority - in fact it's quite reasonable. In addition, he writes of vivisection's effects on the vivisectionist, therefore transferring attention away from the animals and onto the humans. In all honesty, humans will identify with suffering by other humans more than with animals - simply because they are human themselves. "The hapless animal suffers, dies, '""and there an end:""' but the man whose sympathies have been deadened, and whose selfishness has been fostered, by the contemplation of pain deliberately inflicted, may be the parent of others equally brutalised, and so, bequeathe a curse to future ages." (466) As soon as people begin to think of their futures, their children, their progeny in danger, they begin to take action.

However, the downside is that Carroll also creates an oversimplified generalization at times. In his letter to the editor, he writes "Selfishness is the key-note of all purely secular education; and I take vivisection to be a glaring, a whilly unmistakable case in point." (461). There is no evidence that secular education leads to selfishness, epitomized in vivisection. True, a lack of sense of empathy is a huge problem in the case of vivisection, but that did not stem solely from a secular education.

Titus' paper was particularly powerful for me because he wrote from experience. His method of writing clear, unfussy, unaffected prose was jarring - it reflected the shields he had to put up in order to deal with the pain he inflicted so many times on so many birds in the name of science. In fact, he was beginning to have his "sympathies deadened" as Carroll quoted (466) - and this is seen through the distance and cold, factual way he wrote about his actions.

"I placed their heads in the diamond shaped aperture of the guillotine. THe subjects did not receive sedation or anesthetic as those chemicals would conflict with the aims of the experiment...The headless bleeding body convulsed violently at the base of the guillotine as I shifted my focus  to the head...critical to data collection." (478).

TItus shows that data collection is the sole endeavor and focus of vivisection. He comes to the conclusion that "while [he respects] the aims of the experiment, [he is] revolted by the means. Certainly, improving the daily life of humans across the planet is a worthy endeavor; nevertheless, the draconian procedure of vivsection is too great a cost." (480). He addresses the fact that data collection in itself and scientific exploration is not at all a bad thing or an evil - the evil comes in when cruelty and needless suffering is involved. When humans use their power to stomp on the rights of others, just because they can, it is cruel and selfish. Both TItus and Caroll address human selfishness in their essays: Titus in his content, and Caroll by taking advantage of human selfishness to bring readers around to his argument. Both, though not flawless, are incredibly powerful papers.

commons.wikimedia.org

I thought this was a cool image of antivisectionists all over the world.