Some popular fallacies about vivisection / by Lewis Carroll.

  • Lewis Carroll
Date:
[1875 [i.e. between 1920 and 1929?]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Some popular fallacies about vivisection / by Lewis Carroll. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    11/20 page 10
    lO 9, That vivisection does not demoralise the character more than sport. The opponents’ case would not, I think, suffer much even if this were admitted ; but I am inclined to demur to it as a universal truth. We must remember that much of the excitement and interest of sport depend on causes entirely un¬ connected with the infliction of pain, which is rather ignored than deliberately contemplated ; whereas in vivisection the painful effects constitute in many cases a part, in some cases the whole, of the interest felt by the spectator. And all they tell us of the highly developed intellect of the anatomical student, with which they contrast so contemptuously the low animal instincts of the fox-hunter, is but another argument against themselves ; for surely the nobler the being we degrade, the greater is the injury we inflict on society. Corriiptio optimi pessima. “ But all this ignores the motive of the action,” cry the vivisectors. ” What is it in sport ? Mere pleasure. In this matter we hold an impregnable position.” Let us see. 10. That, while the motive in sport is essentially selfish, in vivisection it is essentially unselfish. It is my conviction that the non-scientific world is far too ready to attribute to the advocates of science all the virtues they are so ready to claim ; and when they put forward their favourite ad captandum argument that their labours are undergone for one pure motive—the good of humanity—society is far too ready to exclaim, with Mrs. Varden, ” Here is a meek, righteous, thorough-going Christian, who, having dropped
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3