Murphy’s project involves the vivisection debate of the late ninetieth century. She examines the complexities of the debate and how it became a vehicle to drive moral insurrections occurring at the time. This moment of cultural confusion became even more complex when the state was called in to deliberate on this moral conundrum. Murphy looks at how this debate centered around what it means to be human and how vivisection is both harmful and helpful in establishing this.
To forward her analysis, I would look more closely at the view of science and how it was attributed to the academic and economic elite, and therefore can be attributed to cruelty. I believe that many of the anti-vivisectionists were comparing the cruelty the elite expelled upon animals to that expelled upon the working class. It may also be helpful to examine the contradiction that is apparent when taking into account how vivisection is meant to explore what it means to be human, but also, while pursuing this venture, vivisection is inhumane. I would play devil’s advocate and wonder how we can know what is human if we deny pursuits to do so, arguing inhumanity when it cannot be accurately defined. In all fairness, it could be said that the antivivisection movement is as much as an attack on the scientific community as it is a playpen for moral debate.
I would also like to highlight the notion of dehumanization and how being human is attributed to moral actions, with Murphy saying “antivivi- sectionists would argue that the practice of vivisection dehumanized those who engaged in it” (373). But again, this goes against what vivisectionist are trying to attain. They wish to discover what it means to be human, while antagonists of this notion believe that this is already common knowledge.
Hi Drew,
I definitely agree that Murphy’s project was examining both the harmful and beneficial affects towards vivisection. While reading her analysis, it was interesting to read Murphy’s stance on vivisection and how she discussed morality and humanity as her central theme. I originally did not think to forward Murphy’s project through the “academic and economic elite” as you wrote in your post. I think if she furthered her analysis by drawing in on these views, it would surely make for a stronger stance. Also, I am interested to know what you think crosses the line between what is considered to be inhumane and “pure science”. I as well had to think about this same idea and debate whether or not we should encourage such experiments for the sake of science, or go against them.