What are your thoughts on animal experimentation?

[Rjay]

I'm 100% against it. To test on conscious creatures who can suffer without their consent is immoral. I wouldn't experiment on humans or animals against their will.

Thats a reasonable stance. But whenever I hear this I just tell people to ensure they are morally consistent and not hypocrites. Vegetarians refuse to eat meat, the product of a process they feel is morally wrong. Anti-animal research people should do the exact same, and refuse medications or treatments which are the result of animal experimentation. This will mean pretty much all modern medicines are off the table, and one should not even see doctors, especially surgeons, as they also used animals as part of their training. If animal experimentation is wrong, you wouldn't want to benefit from this morally reprehensible activity would you?

 

[fightdonttweet]

We already slaughter and eat animals more intelligent than most of the ones being experimented on. I love pork so I'm cool with it. No animals get special rights imo except for humans. Its not like they have any rights in nature. They are prey for other creatures and that's reality.

 

[PabloZed]

What does he do(and do with them) out of curiosity?

He's cloning cells, I know that much for sure, and I believe it is so that diseased cells can be substituted.

 

[DizzyYeahYeah]

Disgusting.

If you want something for a human, test it on a human.

 

[redmist25]

Largely dependent on what the study is. I understand even groups like PETA that argue against part of the experimentation that go on for something like cosmetic products. However when it comes to stuff like a vaccine for polio? Sorry, some monkeys are gonna have to die.

It's interesting though. Is there a value scale for life? Do we have more right to live than a monkey? Does our higher intelligence make us more valuable to the planet or less? Does our existence benefit any species but our own?

Are we simply exerting authority over another being because we have the ability to do so? I think in the end, human beings will do what we've always done, which is define parameters that suit our desires.

 

[Mike]

It's interesting though. Is there a value scale for life? Do we have more right to live than a monkey? Does our higher intelligence make us more valuable to the planet or less? Does our existence benefit any species but our own?

Are we simply exerting authority over another being because we have the ability to do so? I think in the end, human beings will do what we've always done, which is define parameters that suit our desires.

This is how I feel but put into words better than I could do.What makes us torturing animals alright? If it's just the fact that we are more intelligent and have advanced technology, shouldn't that give us pause?

 

[Was Exiled]

But would you sacrifice 1 life to save 1,000?

Not unless that 1 life is already included in the 1000 that will die

 

[redmist25]

Imagine if there was an avenue for humans to offer themselves for testing. So many people are disillusioned, contemplating suicide etc. They could give their lives for the benefit of the human race and their deaths would have meaning. We could have an annual televised service to honour them.

They would be psychiatrically evaluated to determine that they were absolutely cognisant of what they were entering into.

In fact you know what, fuck it. We'd just find a way to pervert it. We'd end up farming poor minorities, forging documents, and kidnapping homeless people. We're a malignant species and we'll never give more than we take.

 

[Mike]

Imagine if there was an avenue for humans to offer themselves for testing. So many people are disillusioned, contemplating suicide etc. They could give their lives for the benefit of the human race and their deaths would have meaning. We could have an annual televised service to honour them.

They would be psychiatrically evaluated to determine that they were absolutely cognisant of what they were entering into.

In fact you know what, fuck it. We'd just find a way to pervert it. We'd end up farming poor minorities, forging documents, and kidnapping homeless people. We're a malignant species and we'll never give more than we take.

Well speaking from experience the disillusioned, depressed, and suicidal don't want to be experimented on or to die in agony. We mainly just don't want to feel like shit all the time.

 

[Bob Gray]

I've moved away from consequentialism these last few years. I think it is wrong to kill someone against their will. If it is really okay to kill the few to protect the many, then it would be moral to test on a small group of islanders to help the rest of us out. I wouldn't want to be treated like that, so I wouldn't treat others as such.

It's interesting though. Is there a value scale for life? Do we have more right to live than a monkey? Does our higher intelligence make us more valuable to the planet or less? Does our existence benefit any species but our own?

Are we simply exerting authority over another being because we have the ability to do so? I think in the end, human beings will do what we've always done, which is define parameters that suit our desires.

Well, that sort of deflects the point and steers us into the conversation where I bring up that I think human life is more valuable than animals, and I'm sure we've been involved with enough of those conversations and don't need to rehash them.

My question is sort of an evolution of a question I had for a friend of mine who was a big animal rights activist. The value of human versus animal life came up, and she said she thought humans didn't have more of a right to live, etc. So when I asked her that since a human life has the same value of a the life of a monkey, would she sacrifice 1 human to save 100 monkeys? And she answered "yes" without hesitation.

So I asked her why she wasn't willing to sacrifice 1 animal life to save a hundred people, she didn't really have much of an answer.

So that's why instead of getting into the value of humans vs animals, I just ask that if they're equally valuable, why is it wrong to sacrifice a small number to benefit a larger number? I mean, animals certainly do this. Why is it justified for them, and not for us?

Like I said earlier, this is entirely dependent on the research being done, but for the sake of argument I'm talking specifically about medical research, vaccines, etc.

 

[Bob Gray]

Not unless that 1 life is already included in the 1000 that will die

Then it wouldn't be a sacrifice, so you're just saying "No", basically.

 

[chaolan1]

Or use those lovely never getting out prisoners.

For profit and science can be the new nationwide prison motto.

I Agree that the lifers in prison that have nothing to value to the world should be forced for experiments that would help better humanity. Heck for anyone that commits a crime thats worthy of prison time, should be a test subject. Be alot less heinous crimes

 

[Der Eisbär]

Or use those lovely never getting out prisoners.

For profit and science can be the new nationwide prison motto.

This this fucking this

 

[redmist25]

Well speaking from experience the disillusioned, depressed, and suicidal don't want to be experimented on or to die in agony. We mainly just don't want to feel like shit all the time.

Yeah I can empathise with that. Just offering an extreme solution to a moral dilemma.

 

[Mike]

Well, that sort of deflects the point and steers us into the conversation where I bring up that I think human life is more valuable than animals, and I'm sure we've been involved with enough of those conversations and don't need to rehash them.

My question is sort of an evolution of a question I had for a friend of mine who was a big animal rights activist. The value of human versus animal life came up, and she said she thought humans didn't have more of a right to live, etc. So when I asked her that since a human life has the same value of a the life of a monkey, would she sacrifice 1 human to save 100 monkeys? And she answered "yes" without hesitation.

So I asked her why she wasn't willing to sacrifice 1 animal life to save a hundred people, she didn't really have much of an answer.

So that's why instead of getting into the value of humans vs animals, I just ask that if they're equally valuable, why is it wrong to sacrifice a small number to benefit a larger number? I mean, animals certainly do this. Why is it justified for them, and not for us?

Like I said earlier, this is entirely dependent on the research being done, but for the sake of argument I'm talking specifically about medical research, vaccines, etc.

Logically what your saying makes sense. The problem is involving emotion. I hate the idea of anyone or anything suffering, even if good does come from it.



Some people just aren't ends justify the means people. I was very, very sickly as a child and I doubt I would have made it without constant medical care made possible at some point by experimentation. But I still don't think we have the right to testing simply because we are "superior" to the other animals.

 

[Mike]

Yeah I can empathise with that. Just offering an extreme solution to a moral dilemma.

Yeah when this topic comes up I usually support the idea of using criminals..... but I don't know that I really agree with that morally either, and no matter what process you set up it will be immediately corrupted and innocents will end up suffering. I don't know that there's a morally satisfying solution to this one.

 

[redmist25]

Well, that sort of deflects the point and steers us into the conversation where I bring up that I think human life is more valuable than animals, and I'm sure we've been involved with enough of those conversations and don't need to rehash them.

My question is sort of an evolution of a question I had for a friend of mine who was a big animal rights activist. The value of human versus animal life came up, and she said she thought humans didn't have more of a right to live, etc. So when I asked her that since a human life has the same value of a the life of a monkey, would she sacrifice 1 human to save 100 monkeys? And she answered "yes" without hesitation.

So I asked her why she wasn't willing to sacrifice 1 animal life to save a hundred people, she didn't really have much of an answer.

So that's why instead of getting into the value of humans vs animals, I just ask that if they're equally valuable, why is it wrong to sacrifice a small number to benefit a larger number? I mean, animals certainly do this. Why is it justified for them, and not for us?

Like I said earlier, this is entirely dependent on the research being done, but for the sake of argument I'm talking specifically about medical research, vaccines, etc.

Well, in fairness to your friend, she probably didn't realise you were leading her down a moral cul de sac when she answered. The difference is of course that a human being can opt in where as a monkey can't. I don't think anybody with moral substance would advocate the kidnap and murder of a human being to save some monkeys. So the question remains, why is the reverse acceptable?

 

[redmist25]

Yeah when this topic comes up I usually support the idea of using criminals..... but I don't know that I really agree with that morally either, and no matter what process you set up it will be immediately corrupted and innocents will end up suffering. I don't know that there's a morally satisfying solution to this one.

Agreed on all points.

 

[Drago81]

Well, I worked in as an undergraduate in a cellular biology lab a few years ago that did testing on rats. Here's my opinion on the issue. We have three paths to choose from.

1) Do no testing (animal or human) at all.
2) Do testing, but only on humans.
3) Do testing, but only on animals.

If we go by 1) then a large amount of scientific knowledge cannot be validated. Many cures and remedies to diseases/ailments depend on testing. Medical technology would be set back significantly and more people would die of illnesses in the long run. Insulin for diabetes was discovered through experimentation with a dog's pancreas I believe. 2) will never be licensed because of society's value on human worth. Almost no humans would willingly consent to more stringent testing anyway. Some suggest using violent criminals, but there are not nearly enough of them (we ran through tons of rats just in the 4 months I was there). No democratic country would consent to that anyway. Funnily enough, humans are actually less desirable subjects in the early stages of testing for some experiments because we are too large, therefore occupying too much space and we reproduce too slowly. 3) seems to be the best path. I hate it when they use animal testing for cosmetic purposes though.

 

[Matt M]

It's absolutely fine for medical research.
For cosmetic testing, not so fine, although to be honest animal welfare isn't one of my interests in life so I won't pretend I care too much.


But people who are vehemently against testing on animals for medical research, especially the people who protest about it, damage research centres, threaten the scientists etc, should be made to sign something to say that if they ever end up ill in hospital then they won't be treated with any drug that has ever come about because of animal testing.

Watch their views go right out the window if that was the case.