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 he 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.