What are your thoughts on animal experimentation?

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.

Just like when a PETA VP was using porcine insulin, then came up with a ridiculous justification of how it was alright for her to enjoy the fruits of animal experimentation while working to deny the same to others. They all talk a big game until they are the ones in need of treatment.
 
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?

But animal experimentation isn't kidnapping and murder. Not in the sense of the comparison. These kind of topics make it hard to avoid those kind of direct comparisons, but they rarely work.

At the same time, if there somehow were a way you could kidnap and murder someone and it would save the lives of 100 other people, it becomes a very different scenario altogether. Even discussing it is sort futile because it only exists as an abstract concept since it's not a possibility, whereas animal experimentation is something that's not only possible but the benefits are obvious.

Like someone else said, it becomes a numbers game. If the lives are all equally important then it's hard to come up with a reason not to sacrifice 1 to save 100. Then if the counter argument is a we can understand the value of their lives and that it's wrong to inflict unwanted pain and suffering, we're now seeing the very reasons why people would argue that human lives are more valuable. Animals don't have this same concept of insightful contemplation and avoiding doing something that benefits you because it isn't the "right" thing to do.


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.

I agree, I think it's mostly an emotional argument. I just wish more people would just simply say that as opposed to arguing a position that I feel can generally be shown to lack consistency in it's application.
 
Just like when a PETA VP was using porcine insulin, then came up with a ridiculous justification of how it was alright for her to enjoy the fruits of animal experimentation while working to deny the same to others. They all talk a big game until they are the ones in need of treatment.


PETA are like the militant pro-lifers of the animal welfare world.
I'm pretty sure most of the celebrities who promote them haven't got a clue what they're all about, they just think they want to save cute cuddly animals, where in fact PETA kill thousands of animals every single year.


This Penn & Teller documentary on PETA is great:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY
 
You wouldn't know it if you met me, but I'm a pretty big animal rights guy. I'm also all about saving trees. I don't advocate experimenting on animals with advanced cognitive development that show significant ability to develop and display emotions. However I am conflicted because I will eat the shit out of some meat.
 
I intuitively feel that testing on animals is brutish behavior, even when done for medical reasons; it should be considered beneath us. It's a tough subject however, because I have no real answers for how to rectify the issue. If we discontinue all animal testing it could severely hinder our medical progression. I don't think most humans are willing to incur the damage in order to change the course we're on. Nevertheless, I am the type that's willing to hear alternative ideas.
 
Last edited:
They should do these experiments on serial killers and others on death row convicted of really heinous crimes. There are, however, innocents convicted every now and then so maybe only the one's that have admitted to the crimes and there is absolutely on doubt about their guilt and not just somebody who got convicted because of some lesser evidence.
 
Peter Singer is a master of these arguments. He has been doing it for over 30 years and I recommend looking up his lectures and writing if you want to really get into it.

Watched a few videos of him last night, agreed with some of the things he was saying and disagreed with others. Some of his arguments are flawed imo like his position on bestiality.
 
Then it wouldn't be a sacrifice, so you're just saying "No", basically.

Precisely. I said that just incase you meant a situation where "everyone in this room dies unless you kill 1 of them yourself"
 
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.

Just like last time this issue was raised I'll ask you the same question once again. What morally relevant difference is there between humans and non human animals that gives us sufficient justification to exploit them for our own ends? Since you have no rational argument you prefer instead to try and divert attention onto the characters of animal rights advocates or organizations such as PETA (who are not an accurate representation of the movement as a whole). Let's play your little game for a moment and say that some of the activists are hypocrites in using medicines which have previously been tested on animals. So what? What does this say about the actual philosophy of animal liberation? Absolutely nothing at all. Regardless of what some individuals or groups may or may not do it still stands that there is no relevant difference between humans and animals that gives us superior status.

I suggest you watch this video in the hope it may give you a more sympathetic insight into the minds of the people that you seem to despise so much though seeing as you are locked into such inexorable view of reality it's quite unlikely.

[YT]?v=FfKXq9BL29o[/YT]

And here is a discussion between Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins that may just provoke some lines of thought regarding humans v animals that you might not have considered before.

[YT]?v=GYYNY2oKVWU[/YT]
 
Regardless of what some individuals or groups may or may not do it still stands that there is no relevant difference between humans and animals that gives us superior status.


What a ridiculous statement, the obvious difference is that we have the ability to exploit them as a research model/food source/entertainment source/clothing source/etc etc for the benefit of humanity. Our superior status stems from the fact that we are superior. Animals do the same thing to other species on a smaller scale. Its the natural order. Saying you don't agree with reality doesn't change reality.:wink:
 
Im down for human testing. I dont think we have enough willing participants or vegetables though. I think all chimp and dog testing should be replaced if possible. But Mice testing? Nah
 
I think it's neccesary for certain scientific advancements. Not cool when we're wanting to test hair products.....
 
What a ridiculous statement, the obvious difference is that we have the ability to exploit them as a research model/food source/entertainment source/clothing source/etc etc for the benefit of humanity. Our superior status stems from the fact that we are superior. Animals do the same thing to other species on a smaller scale. Its the natural order. Saying you don't agree with reality doesn't change reality.:wink:
Honestly just because we can doesnt mean we should. As higher intelligence beings we pretty much take up the responsibility to take care of our animals and planet. What we do to the planet and animals currently is pretty fucked up.

I dont really follow Ghandi but this makes sense to me
gandhi.png


Im definitely not a vegetarian either but I think Einstein was on to something.
albert-einstein-vegetarian-quote-3.jpg
 
Honestly just because we can doesnt mean we should. As higher intelligence beings we pretty much take up the responsibility to take care of our animals and planet. What we do to the planet and animals currently is pretty fucked up.

I dont really follow Ghandi but this makes sense to me
gandhi.png


Im definitely not a vegetarian either but I think Einstein was on to something.
albert-einstein-vegetarian-quote-3.jpg

Your entitled to your opinion and I think that mindset is noble and enlightened. I also agree that humanity needs to preserve and nurture the natural world and that it is a great crime that man has destroyed so much of biodiversity. That being said I believe that understanding the natural world is our responsibility and that use of animal models to do so is ethically and morally correct.
 
Your entitled to your opinion and I think that mindset is noble and enlightened. I also agree that humanity needs to preserve and nurture the natural world and that it is a great crime that man has destroyed so much of biodiversity. That being said I believe that understanding the natural world is our responsibility and that use of animal models to do so is ethically and morally correct.
I think you would be right, if there wasnt human alternatives. Its about doing the lesser evil imo. What we are really debating isnt if we should, because obviously we should. Its about if humans get priority on animals. And normally they would, except we have volunteers and vegetables. Organs donors that are veggies are basically the same thing. But yeah, normal, regular humans should have priority over animals for sure.
 
What a ridiculous statement, the obvious difference is that we have the ability to exploit them as a research model/food source/entertainment source/clothing source/etc etc for the benefit of humanity. Our superior status stems from the fact that we are superior. Animals do the same thing to other species on a smaller scale. Its the natural order. Saying you don't agree with reality doesn't change reality.:wink:

7fW9FxuVWAoWQ.gif


Saying we are superior because we are superior is not an argument and as far as I know we are the only species who systematically enslaves and experiments on other species so unless you can provide us with some hard evidence to the contrary then I'm not the one looking ridiculous here.
 
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.

I'm assuming you don't use any medicine then, or is it alright to use the products of such testing?


I say the rules are pretty good in my country. The bar to entry qualifying for animal testing is high. The animals wouldn't have any life were they not useful and unnecessary suffering is avoided. C'est ne pas un problem.
 
Back
Top