Aristotle would indeed not approve of experiments performed on animals. He seems
to put much emphasis throughout his writings on the similarity of the animal and
humans. He also puts much emphasis on the fact that animals and plants are very
different. The only thing animals lack, according to Aristotle, that
differentiate them from humans is a mind. He says that nutrition is shared by
all natural living organisms but animals have perception in addition, and among
natural organisms humans alone have mind. The mind is exclusively a human
property. However, Aristotle’s many other examples that make animals
human-like indicate that he would not be one for animal experimentation. When he
explains the qualities of plants, animals. and humans, he declares that any
creature with reason will also have perception; any creature with perception
will also have the ability to take on nutrition and to reproduce; but the
converse does not hold. Thus, plants show up with only the nutritive soul,
animals have both perceptual and nutritive faculties, and humans have all three.
This means animals are very close to humans, only lacking one step which is
reason. Also, to distinguish animals from plants, Aristotle stresses that
perception is the capacity of the soul which distinguishes animals from plants
and that having a perceptive ability is decisive of being an animal. Animals
must have perception if they are to live. He gives the example of a dog knowing
his master, not only as any man, but “his master--the man who on other
occasions has fed, trained, punished, and praised him(Jones, 242).” Though he
does also show some small differences in the perception of animals and humans,
Aristotle does focus much of his attention on the similarities that one must
recognize. Clearly, therefore, Aristotle would not advocate animal
experimentation.