We have still not answered the question of when an
experimentmightbejustifiable.Itwillnotdotosay“Never!”
Puttingmoralityinsuchblack-and-whitetermsisappealing,
becauseiteliminatestheneedtothinkaboutparticularcases;
butinextremecircumstances,suchabsolutistanswersalways
break down. Torturing a human being is almost always
wrong,butitisnotabsolutelywrong.Iftortureweretheonly
way inwhich we coulddiscoverthe locationofa nuclear
bombhiddeninaNewYorkCitybasementandtimedtogo
off within the hour, then torture would be justifiable.
Similarly,if a single experimentcould curea disease like
leukemia,thatexperimentwouldbejustifiable.Butinactual
lifethebenefitsarealwaysmoreremote,andmoreoftenthan
not they arenonexistent. So how do we decide when an
experiment is justifiable?
Wehaveseen thatexperimenters reveala bias in favor of
their ownspecieswhenevertheycarryout experiments on
nonhumansforpurposesthattheywouldnot thinkjustified
theminusinghumanbeings,evenbrain-damagedones.This
principlegivesusaguidetowardananswertoourquestion.
Sinceaspeciesistbias,likearacistbias,isunjustifiable,an
experimentcannotbejustifiableunlesstheexperimentisso
importantthattheuseofabrain-damagedhumanwouldalso
be justifiable.
This isnot an absolutist principle.I donot believethat it
couldneverbejustifiabletoexperimentonabrain-damaged
human.Ifitreallywerepossibletosaveseverallivesbyan
experimentthatwouldtakejustonelife,andtherewere no
otherwaythoselivescouldbesaved,itwouldberighttodo
theexperiment. But this wouldbe an extremely rarecase.
Certainlynoneoftheexperimentsdescribedin thischapter