Should I participate in animal testing for developing vaccines to pandemics?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So, with respect to, say, testing potential vaccines on animals, what would be our position on that? There are two understandings of ethics.
The Mahabharata, in fact, is a very excellent reflection of these two understandings of ethics. One, you can call it as categorical ethics. The other is contextual ethics.
Categorical ethics is, this is the category of right and that is the category of wrong and that’s all. So, right and wrong are two distinct non-intersecting categories. This is white, this is black.
That’s contextual, that’s categorical ethics. But there is contextual ethics. Contextual ethics means, yes, there is right and wrong are categories, but these categories are not watertight.
We have to consider context. And between white and black, there is much that is of various shades of grey. So, when we are considering contextual ethics, right and wrong is determined not just by the content of what we are doing, but there are two other factors.
There is content, but there is also intent and there is consequence. There is intent and consequence. So, for example, say, speaking lies is a bad thing.
We might say that in terms of categorical ethics, that’s bad. We should not speak lies. That’s true.
And yes, that’s right. But then, suppose there are some rioters who are chasing our friend. Maybe the friend belongs to a particular community that rioters want to lynch.
And that friend comes to our house and says, please save me. And we hide that friend in our basement and the rioters come and knock on our door. Is he here? Now, what should we say? Now, you say, I want to speak the truth.
Well, you speak the truth in content, speaking truth is good. But in consequence, speaking truth will lead to will lead to the death of the person of our friend. So here, in terms of categorical ethics, we might speak the truth when we will cause harm to our friend.
But in terms of contextual ethics, OK, not that indiscriminately I go about speaking lies, but the consequence of speaking truth is bad, then maybe I need to speak the truth at that particular time. So contextual ethics is what is we for negotiating the complexity of life, we all need to follow contextual ethics. In the Mahabharata, initially Yudhishthira was a follower of categorical ethics.
So when his, when Dhritarashtra told him to come for a gambling match, Dhritarashtra is like my father figure, I don’t want to gamble, but I can’t refuse. So he just, oh, that is the right thing to do, obedience to my elders. But then he saw the result of that.
He saw how Draupadi was dishonored, how they were all defrauded of the kingdom, how Duryodhana was so devious. And then he decided that, no, this is not the right way to do. So then later on, when again Dhritarashtra tries to do some false reasoning, he says, no.
So the point I’m making is in the deal with the complexity of real life, often we need to operate with not categorical ethics, but contextual ethics. So I had an elaborate discussion with another student in Columbus, Ohio, when I had come last time about animal ethics. And I’ll mention just two, three quick points about it, because this can be a big subject.
So in terms of categorical ethics, yes, certainly we wouldn’t want to, we won’t want to cause pain to anyone of what to speak of, cause, maybe inject chemicals that might even cause death or enhance pain before death. So that’s in principle, in terms of categorical ethics, animal testing would be wrong. Now, in terms of contextual ethics, we have to see what is the lesser evil.
We might not have a choice between good and bad, just between bad and bad. So which is the lesser evil? So all life is precious, but comparatively speaking, even from a philosophical perspective, the soul in a human body is more evolved, the consciousness of the soul is more evolved than the consciousness of the soul in the animal body. And so in extreme situations, if there is a choice between human life and animal life, then the animal life can be sacrificed for human life.
This is not that, again, this is not licensed indiscriminate animal killing, but in extreme situations, when that’s actually the choice, then animal life can be sacrificed for a human life. So in that sense, if the only way to develop a cure could be, is through vaccines which need to be tested on animals, then comparatively speaking, that is acceptable. And further, the second point with respect to the contextualization is that it’s not that we are going to kill millions of animals.
There are certain number of animals that we kill, but it could be that by that millions of human beings are saved. So in comparison, the not doing this, the consequences could be much more. But beyond that, it could be that even within animal testing, animal testing can be done in ways that are, broadly when I discuss with this devotee, there are certain things which could be, there are certain ways of testing which do not necessarily involve animals to the same degree.
Either there is a whole something which is going on, we just say, I won’t be a part of it. And we just distance ourselves from it or we go inside it and we see whether this can be done in a less disruptive way. So just like Narad Muni told Bhrigari, you’re killing animals, why are you killing them half, kill them fully? So why are you killing them half now? He was jolted by that.
Oh, you’re telling me to kill them fully. So the idea is where pain is being caused, cause it less if pain is unavoidable. So there are many aspects of animal testing and not all of them, all of those aspects have to be done on animals.
So maybe within the whole concept of animal testing, maybe certain testings could be done in a less violent way, certain testings could be done without using animals. There are of course other ethical issues. Nowadays, there is stem cell research going on and we develop things over there and we can test on that.
But the point is that sometimes if we are a part of a particular profession, then rather than saying that I can’t be a part of it or I just will be a part of it, we could consider maybe this, I could be a part of this, but maybe I could be a part of a change by which this can be done in a more conscious way, in a more conscious way where the pain can be minimized. So, Sarvarambhai doshena dhume naag nirvavrata. Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita that all endeavor is covered by fault, just as fire is covered by smoke.
So we can’t avoid have some fault in the activities that we do in the world, but we can try to minimize that fault. So, I would say that is some broad guidelines for deciding how to go ahead when our profession requires us animal testing. Does this answer your question?