Thomas Huxley once wrote, "Veracity is the heart of morality." If this is the case, then the decisions to either pursue or abandon our pharmaceutical endeavors is contingent upon searching far and wide for answers and truth on the topic. The essential question at hand is as follows: does the possibility of great human gain (i.e. saving many lives), outweigh the certain death of many baby seals? Although there are many arguments for and against this enterprise, a decision is imperative to the success of the corporation. .
First and foremost, when arguing for the sake of this endeavor, we have to assume that the research of a skin cancer cure will in fact be successful. If we didn't, and there was a contingency factor, we could never arrive at a conclusion. That being said, from a strictly utilitarian stance, the "utility" would be maximized if we did follow through and continue with testing (assuming a cure was found). In other words, the most net happiness would be created if the seals were tested on and killed, thus fulfilling the greatest happiness principal. Furthermore, seals are not part of the moral community; meaning they don't have the capacity to be moral agents, and we have no obligation to offer them moral consideration.2 Even a strict consequencialist would agree that the consequences of having tests on the seals and only having a slight possibility of finding a cure is better than not testing and not finding a cure when it really existed.2 .
The arguments against testing our products on the seals are also very compelling, not only for the sake of the animals, but for well-being of the corporation. A consequentialist with the welfare of the company in mind would argue that the consequences of being wrong are so great that they outweigh any benefits of profit. For example, if the tests are conducted and no cure is found, there could be potentially bankrupting repercussions due to protests, stockholder insecurity, and bad advertising.