Animals are Not Lab Tools. By Dr. Chapman Chen

In his classic book, Animal Theology, Oxford University theology professor Reverend Andrew Linzey argues that animals belong to God, not to humans, that they are not expendables or instruments for humans, and that they should not be sacrificed for humans (Linzey 1995, pp. 106-113). Below please find my summary of his argument.

1. Animals are Not Expendables

Christian theology should begin its consideration of animals with a fundamental principle: animals are not expendable for human purposes. They must never be regarded merely as objects, resources, or instruments that humans may use whenever doing so appears advantageous. Even purposes that seem morally admirable do not automatically justify harming other creatures. Animals possess value independently of their usefulness because they are creatures of God. Human beings therefore have no absolute right of ownership over them. Neither humans nor animals possess unlimited rights, since ultimately all creation belongs to its Creator. Deliberately inflicting avoidable death, deprivation, injury, or suffering upon animals must consequently be regarded as morally wrong.

Our obligations toward animals differ fundamentally from our relationship with inanimate objects. A work of art may be valuable, but an animal is a living creature toward whom humans bear direct moral responsibilities. Animals possess intrinsic worth through their creation by God. We therefore cannot legitimately treat them merely according to what benefits, entertains, or pleases us.

2. Animals are Not Instruments for Humans

The second principle follows: animals are not instruments for humans. In particular, they should not be regarded simply as laboratory tools. Their existence cannot properly be understood through a utilitarian framework in which they become raw material for improving human health, extending human life, increasing knowledge, or providing enjoyment. The Christian doctrine of creation challenges such anthropocentrism because it requires humans to consider the good of other creatures themselves.

This does not necessarily mean that every conceivable human use of animals is morally impermissible. There may be circumstances in which interaction with an animal serves purposes compatible with that individual creature's own good. Nevertheless, our limited understanding of the ultimate significance and purpose of sentient creatures should encourage humility rather than exploitation. Humans did not create animals, and animals do not ultimately belong to humanity. We remain accountable to God for how we treat them.

Animal experimentation therefore presents an especially grave problem for Christian ethics. Every year, millions of animals are bred, confined, subjected to experimental procedures, and killed. From a Christian theological perspective, such institutionalized practices cannot simply be rendered morally acceptable by demonstrating that humans benefit from them. Christian ethics cannot surrender its reasoning entirely to anthropocentric calculations in which benefits to humanity outweigh costs imposed upon animals.

2.1. Scientific Knowledge versus Spiritual Knowledge

Scientific experimentation has undoubtedly produced substantial knowledge and benefits. Yet scientific knowledge is not the only kind of knowledge that matters. Understanding what kind of moral and spiritual beings we ought to become is equally important. Scientific knowledge becomes distorted when treated as an absolute value overriding every other moral consideration. Analytical intelligence has produced extraordinary achievements, but many of life's greatest goods—love, friendship, imagination, inner peace, compassion, and meaningful relationships—cannot be reduced to scientific calculation. Excessive emphasis upon technological and analytical power can even undermine these values.

3. Animals Should Not be Sacrificed for Humans

A third principle follows: animals should not be sacrificed for humans. Sacrifice is an offering made to God, not something demanded for human advantage.

3.1. Christ’s Sacrifice is Voluntary and Loving

“The sacrifice of Christ was not a propitiation demanded of Christ by an angry God. On the contrary, it was the free offering to God the Father in the cause of love for fellow creatures. It is the sacrifice of love freely given, and not the sacrifice of blood required, that is the distinctly Christian understanding of this matter” (Linzey 1995, p.110).

This distinction becomes particularly important regarding consent in experimentation. The Declaration of Helsinki established that the welfare of a research subject must take precedence over the interests of science and society, developing ethical principles expressed in the Nuremberg Code. Central to this ethical tradition is voluntary consent. Animals, however, cannot consent to laboratory procedures performed upon them. If the interests of research subjects genuinely take priority over scientific or social interests, it is difficult to explain why this principle should disappear simply because the subject belongs to another species. Subjecting any sentinet being to experimental procedures contrary to its own interests therefore raises a fundamental moral problem. Such protection should ultimately be embodied in law.

Hans Ruesch points out that scientists involved in animal experimentation are guilty of “greed, cruelty, ambition, incompetence, callousness, stupidity, criminality, indifference, vanity, vice, etc.” Yet, many scientists themselves have sought to reduce animal use and develop alternatives. The deeper problem is institutional: systems can normalize practices that would otherwise provoke serious moral concern. Effective protection for animals therefore requires legal as well as personal moral change.

3.2. “Dominion” Re-examined

Christianity must also reconsider interpretations of biblical dominion that have encouraged human supremacy over other creatures. Historically, dominion has often been interpreted as granting humanity exceptional privileges while insufficiently emphasizing responsibility toward creation. Theology develops as moral understanding deepens. Christians have previously had to recognize serious failures concerning slavery, women's rights, and the treatment of other human beings. Future generations may similarly judge contemporary theology morally shortsighted if it fails to confront humanity's treatment of animals.

4. Conclusion

The proper theological question, therefore, is not simply: What are humans permitted to do to animals? It is: What good can human beings bring to God's other creatures? Instead of asking how far our power over animals extends, Christians should ask how they can provide care, protection, assistance, and compassion. A genuinely Christian ethic should seek the highest moral behaviour humans are capable of toward animals, recognizing them not as experimental material, disposable resources, or sacrifices for human advancement, but as fellow creatures whose lives possess value before God.

Full Text: https://www.vegantheology.net/post/animals-are-not-lab-tools-by-dr-chapman-chen