11–20 of 84 posts
It's a sort of ethical math. Most people don't do the math because it's not obvious that some thought is needed, instead going with their gut feeling.
I can say with confidence that this sort of thing would never occur in a modern research laboratory. Note that standards for ethical experimentation on animals (including humans) hadn't really appeared until the 70s and 80s. A couple of points here: Any type of animal experimentation must be accompanied by an IACUC protocol that is approved by a committee, typically at least 3 people, and usually including a veterina…
http://www.nature.com/news/animal-rights-activists-wreak-hav...
I can say with confidence that this sort of thing would never occur in a modern research laboratory. Note that standards for ethical experimentation on animals (including humans) hadn't really appeared until the 70s and 80s. A couple of points here: Any type of animal experimentation must be accompanied by an IACUC protocol that is approved by a committee, typically at least 3 people, and usually including a veterina…
Thank you for spelling it out. As much as I empathize with the author, these articles are often misused by ignorant activists. In my country, years of research have been ruined thanks to the clueless. http://www.nature.com/news/animal-rights-activists-wreak-hav...
One thing though: as far as I know (from people having worked in the US, with primates), the IACUC rules for housing like cage volume etc are still not really sufficient.
Animals suffer horrible lives naturally too, and on a much more massive scale. If you're really against animal suffering and dying then a far bigger problem is the existence of wild animals with peak populations, unreliable food supplies, predators, fights and disease. Stopping animal research is like trying to stop global warming by driving slower. Feels like you're making a difference but you're not .
Humans suffer horrible lives naturally too, and on a much more massive scale. If you're really against human suffering and dying then a far bigger problem is the existence of humans with peak populations, unreliable food supplies, murderers, fights and disease. Stopping research on humans is like trying to stop global warming by driving slower. Feels like you're making a difference but you're not.
100 years from now, we will look back on the experiments performed on nonhuman animals with the same disgust that we have for the experiments performed on humans by the Nazis. "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." - Martin Luther King Jr.
You have a somewhat naive view about how our moral compass moves as a straight lines from bad to good. Before the Nazis performed experiments on humans, it was considered horrible to perform experiments on humans. What Nazis had that allowed them to perform experiments on humans was a carte blanche to do whatever they want by contemporary law, and the ideology that those human beings were in fact "inferior" human bei…
I'm not sure what "the cycle of life" is, but just because something may be present elsewhere in the animal kingdom does not mean we should replicate it or justify our actions through it.
100 years from now, we will look back on the experiments performed on nonhuman animals with the same disgust that we have for the experiments performed on humans by the Nazis. "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Why should animal suffer for human? Well human have higher moral value because of higher ability of pain, emotions and cognition.
Don't get me wrong given the choice I would stop any animal cruelty if there would be alternative. As far as I know there isn't one. We can't just simply switch to some computer simulation for testing drugs instead of testing them on live animals unfortunately.
So stopping animal testing entirely doesn't seem to me to be right, but we should take a closer look at it. Be extremely careful that any harm done to animals is justified, that research being done on them really brings benefits and that we are doing best we can to relieve as much pain as it is possible.
I believe that much bigger issue eating meat, where reason why we cause huge amount of pain to animals comes mostly to , because it taste good.
100 years from now, we will look back on the experiments performed on nonhuman animals with the same disgust that we have for the experiments performed on humans by the Nazis. "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have a somewhat naive view about how our moral compass moves as a straight lines from bad to good. Before the Nazis performed experiments on humans, it was considered horrible to perform experiments on humans. What Nazis had that allowed them to perform experiments on humans was a carte blanche to do whatever they want by contemporary law, and the ideology that those human beings were in fact "inferior" human bei…
"yet, killing each other and eating each other is part of the cycle of life" I'm not sure what "the cycle of life" is, but just because something may be present elsewhere in the animal kingdom does not mean we should replicate it or justify our actions through it.
100 years from now, we will look back on the experiments performed on nonhuman animals with the same disgust that we have for the experiments performed on humans by the Nazis. "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." - Martin Luther King Jr.
You have a somewhat naive view about how our moral compass moves as a straight lines from bad to good. Before the Nazis performed experiments on humans, it was considered horrible to perform experiments on humans. What Nazis had that allowed them to perform experiments on humans was a carte blanche to do whatever they want by contemporary law, and the ideology that those human beings were in fact "inferior" human bei…
The pattern that I see is that society is giving moral value to groups that have less power; groups that we have historically harmed without thought.
We must define "group" though, because obviously the most powerless things on this planet are plants and inanimate, nonliving objects. And it would be very short-sighted to define "group" as "everything that society currently gives moral value, i.e. all humans and an arbitrary subset of animals". I define "group" as persons that can feel emotion (not necessarily human emotion), have some sense of their environments, and have some sense of desire. In short, our "group" includes all sentient beings.
If we follow this line of thought, it feels obvious that all sentient beings will be recognized as valuable. And that the question is not "if", but "when".
I want to address your counter example:
> This would enable full legalization of humane practices like assisted death for the heavily disabled and terminally ill, and might open the doors again for experimenting on humans to move medicine forward.
As a society, we believe that a moral being does not have the right to take their own life. It doesn't say anything about who is or isn't a moral being, which is what I am addressing.
The counter example you were looking for was a society where all humans had no moral value. If humans have no moral value, then it does not matter if a human kills themselves, because it also doesn't matter if humans kill and harm each other.
Disclaimer: I have lived my entire life in the United States. When I say "society", I usually mean "the west".
100 years from now, we will look back on the experiments performed on nonhuman animals with the same disgust that we have for the experiments performed on humans by the Nazis. "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." - Martin Luther King Jr.
I hope that 100 years from now we will still look at those who could benefit humanity by doing experiments on animals but did not do so for "moral" reasons with disgust.
What about all those that don't work in a job benefitting humanity, and do so for more selfish reasons than moral?