I didn't mean to start a debate or anything. I've been receptive to those arguments for a long time, though I realize that an entirely different set of facts exists for the other side which I think have some validity.
In any event, I think this is really misguided:
"Most animal experimenters would not use nonconsenting humans in invasive research. In making this concession, they reveal the importance they attach to species membership, a biological line that is as morally relevant as that of race or gender, that is, not relevant at all."
And so I'm not really sympathetic to the arguments that use that as their base. I think a lot of the scientific testing argument comes down to which way you decide to interpret the findings, results, etc. that have been obtained through the testing.
We cannot get the consent of the animal because we cannot communicate with them. Now, making the assumption that animals are on par with human value, you can make that jump to say that we should not test on them because of that.
You may not feel comfortable with the pivotal assumption of this argument, but many do. They see it as a prejudice to have us communicate that anything that we cannot speak with because it is not civilized must be unintelligent and nearly senseless. The step that I take is simply the step that the prolife abortionists take: we don't know what constitutes a life, are you willing to risk that you may be killing massive numbers of sentient beings for what amounts to trivial, cosmetic, luxury.
citing: the chart showing the cancer increase, literally cosmetic testing, and tests that appear incapable of showing us reliable data (Unnecessary Fuss)
The step that I take is simply the step that the prolife abortionists take: we don't know what constitutes a life, are you willing to risk that you may be killing massive numbers of sentient beings for what amounts to trivial, cosmetic, luxury.
I definitely agree that there's no reason for animals to be manipulated in order to achieve trivial and cosmetic luxuries. In the case of vaccines and medicines for human diseases, I think that you have to consider whether the moral implications of testing animals are more severe than the moral implications of not going ahead with the experiment, whatever it is. If it is more severe, then the experiment is not acceptable
( ... )
I think that you have to consider whether the moral implications of testing animals are more severe than the moral implications of not going ahead with the experiment
The end justifies the means certainly would be a wonderful way to examine things if we could ever be so sure. It is impossible to know the outcome of our actions most notably on such a large and experimental scale. If you are doing something, like animal testing, which requires acting on a massive scale to even hope to find your justification then that is a mighty leap of faith. You are playing the lottery with lives(A) in the hope to win more lives(H). This ratio of A:H is something subjective and not considered in science. Studies do not stop because too many animals have been spent; they continue in a desperate hope to justify all of the damage that has been done.
I don't think that the lives of animals have no worth. Again, I think we need to respect their lives as valuable but humans lives as more valuable.
I would be very surprised to learn that the lines defining what is human and what isn't are blurry. No one is actually going to dispute the humanity of people with Down's syndrome in any practical sense. If some day a gorilla has sex with a human or the other way around and they produce a child, then there would be some open interpretation. We have a very close kinship to other Great Apes and I think humans have an obligation to protect them because of that and other reasons. It doesn't mean our right to live should ever be subsumed by an ape attack that attacks us though.
Not to exaggerate, but your definition rings of prejudice. A comparable example may be the line that one can draw between white and black to deem who should gain entry into schools. There is no founded reason behind it, simply a line drawn and sides dictated.Racism has always been invalid is because there exists no
( ... )
Let me also add something because I think this is important.
To say that speciesism is comparable with racial prejudice or that animal exploitation is equivalent to human exploitation is probably the worst self-inflicted injury the animal rights movement can give to itself. Those sentiments could only by espoused by people who had never experienced those things firsthand. The animal rights movement is a post-1960's phenomenon, superimposing the structure of very noble human liberation struggles (oppressed classes, minorities, etc.) on animals. Equating the suffering of animals with that of humans is not only ignorant of the depth of human suffering, but it also cheapens the legacy of the liberation movements that worked and continue to work to free those humans
( ... )
The comparison to prejudice was not meant to completely correlate. It was making the comparison that the dividing line is drawn and its rationale doesn't directly correspond. To say that a human has value and other things have little or no value because they are not human has no scientific backing. This is vague. What about a human, besides instinctual compulsion, makes us of value? If it is emotional depth, feeling of pain, attachment to others, ability to reason, whatever, then draw the line there. Simply because something is not a human is does not deserve the value that I give to a human seems faulty.
A better example would be to say: my red cars go fast, other cars are incapable of moving because they are not red (but this is less fleshy and provocative). This seems to be the argument of the nonAR side. It does not make the dichotomy that because they are not human they are not worth as much (because they are not red they cannot go as fast; which as you see also has its flaws), but says that because they are not human
( ... )
Comments 28
In any event, I think this is really misguided:
"Most animal experimenters would not use nonconsenting humans in invasive research. In making this concession, they reveal the importance they attach to species membership, a biological line that is as morally relevant as that of race or gender, that is, not relevant
at all."
And so I'm not really sympathetic to the arguments that use that as their base. I think a lot of the scientific testing argument comes down to which way you decide to interpret the findings, results, etc. that have been obtained through the testing.
Reply
We cannot get the consent of the animal because we cannot communicate with them. Now, making the assumption that animals are on par with human value, you can make that jump to say that we should not test on them because of that.
You may not feel comfortable with the pivotal assumption of this argument, but many do. They see it as a prejudice to have us communicate that anything that we cannot speak with because it is not civilized must be unintelligent and nearly senseless.
The step that I take is simply the step that the prolife abortionists take: we don't know what constitutes a life, are you willing to risk that you may be killing massive numbers of sentient beings for what amounts to trivial, cosmetic, luxury.
citing: the chart showing the cancer increase, literally cosmetic testing, and tests that appear incapable of showing us reliable data (Unnecessary Fuss)
Reply
I definitely agree that there's no reason for animals to be manipulated in order to achieve trivial and cosmetic luxuries. In the case of vaccines and medicines for human diseases, I think that you have to consider whether the moral implications of testing animals are more severe than the moral implications of not going ahead with the experiment, whatever it is. If it is more severe, then the experiment is not acceptable ( ... )
Reply
The end justifies the means certainly would be a wonderful way to examine things if we could ever be so sure. It is impossible to know the outcome of our actions most notably on such a large and experimental scale. If you are doing something, like animal testing, which requires acting on a massive scale to even hope to find your justification then that is a mighty leap of faith. You are playing the lottery with lives(A) in the hope to win more lives(H). This ratio of A:H is something subjective and not considered in science. Studies do not stop because too many animals have been spent; they continue in a desperate hope to justify all of the damage that has been done.
Reply
I would be very surprised to learn that the lines defining what is human and what isn't are blurry. No one is actually going to dispute the humanity of people with Down's syndrome in any practical sense. If some day a gorilla has sex with a human or the other way around and they produce a child, then there would be some open interpretation. We have a very close kinship to other Great Apes and I think humans have an obligation to protect them because of that and other reasons. It doesn't mean our right to live should ever be subsumed by an ape attack that attacks us though.
Not to exaggerate, but your definition rings of prejudice. A comparable example may be the line that one can draw between white and black to deem who should gain entry into schools. There is no founded reason behind it, simply a line drawn and sides dictated.Racism has always been invalid is because there exists no ( ... )
Reply
To say that speciesism is comparable with racial prejudice or that animal exploitation is equivalent to human exploitation is probably the worst self-inflicted injury the animal rights movement can give to itself. Those sentiments could only by espoused by people who had never experienced those things firsthand. The animal rights movement is a post-1960's phenomenon, superimposing the structure of very noble human liberation struggles (oppressed classes, minorities, etc.) on animals. Equating the suffering of animals with that of humans is not only ignorant of the depth of human suffering, but it also cheapens the legacy of the liberation movements that worked and continue to work to free those humans ( ... )
Reply
A better example would be to say: my red cars go fast, other cars are incapable of moving because they are not red (but this is less fleshy and provocative). This seems to be the argument of the nonAR side. It does not make the dichotomy that because they are not human they are not worth as much (because they are not red they cannot go as fast; which as you see also has its flaws), but says that because they are not human ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment