Is Animal Testing Justifiable or Should We Seek Alternatives?

[lavalamp]

I don't know about america but over here we have the RSPCA (Royal Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). If you can't find the american equivalent, you could always donate to that organisation.

 

[Monique]

I think they should be certifying animal products, if they go by certain standards, give them a sticker and that way people can make their own decisions in the store..

For eggs there is this for instance, I guess for meats it would be the biological section?

So everyone start eating biological meats! The best way to hit these people is in their wallet.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
If it's going to be used by humans it should be used on humans. I believe that some states have the death penalty in America. Maybe the prisoners should be offered the alternative to be tested on ina potentially fatal experiment. If they live they can go.
Of course testing could be imposed upon them, that would be a real deterent for gun crime.

So let me get this straight. You don't want to let any mice get tested. But you would like human beings to be told "you can either have this weird substance injected into your body, quite possibly killing you, or you can spend the rest of your like in prison."

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
So am I right in thinking that you think animal testing is OK because it's not as bad as it could be? If you were doing an experiment on an animal and someone said that it was wrong, would your justification be, "Well at least I'm not dismembering it."?

Go to google.com. Select images. Enter "thalidomide" and see just one example of what happens when we don't test on animals. I think a few lab mice would have been worth it to prevent that. And in my opinion testing drugs on lab animals is a lot more morally justified than, say, eating a hamburger.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
If it's going to be used by humans it should be used on humans. I believe that some states have the death penalty in America. Maybe the prisoners should be offered the alternative to be tested on ina potentially fatal experiment. If they live they can go.
Of course testing could be imposed upon them, that would be a real deterent for gun crime.

So let me get this straight. You don't want to let any mice get tested. But you would like human beings to be told "you can either have this weird substance injected into your body, quite possibly killing you, or you can spend the rest of your like in prison."

 

[lavalamp]

While I agree that in certain spcialised cases, a bit of foresight may have prevented a disaster. But if you tested it on mice, then surely they would have been caused great distress as well.
You seem to have picked up the premice that we are above them, and they are inferior to us, just because they are smaller and we keep them locked up in cages.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
While I agree that in certain spcialised cases, a bit of foresight may have prevented a disaster. But if you tested it on mice, then surely they would have been caused great distress as well.
You seem to have picked up the premice that we are above them, and they are inferior to us, just because they are smaller and we keep them locked up in cages.

If I had to choose between a few hundred mice and hundreds to billions of human beings, than yes, I would side with the human beings.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
And in my opinion testing drugs on lab animals is a lot more morally justified than, say, eating a hamburger.

Well said :)

 

[lavalamp]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
If I had to choose between a few hundred mice and hundreds to billions of human beings, than yes, I would side with the human beings.

No offence, but it isn't your decision to make. Did anyone ask the mice if they wanted to make that sacrifice, no. Just because they can't answer for themselves does not mean that they have fewer rights than humans.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
No offence, but it isn't your decision to make. Did anyone ask the mice if they wanted to make that sacrifice, no. Just because they can't answer for themselves does not mean that they have fewer rights than humans.

No offense, but it isn't your decision to make on whether or not rodent should have the same rights as humans.

 

[lavalamp]

So you just assume that they don't have the same rights as us and are willing to just go ahead and experiment on them?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by lavalamp
You seem to have picked up the premice that we are above them, and they are inferior to us

We are, and they are.

No offence, but it isn't your decision to make. Did anyone ask the mice if they wanted to make that sacrifice, no. Just because they can't answer for themselves does not mean that they have fewer rights than humans.

Try it, lavalamp. Ask one. See what it says. Seriously. Based on the answer you get, you can answer the question you posed above.

So you just assume that they don't have the same rights as us and are willing to just go ahead and experiment on them?

They don't, lavalamp. Human rights are human rights. They apply to humans.

Quick question, which is more humane, killing a cow by shoving an electrified metal rod up its rear (thats how its actually done - I think Monique's info is out of date) or having a mountain lion chase it down and bite its throat? Either way they die. The mountain lion probably takes a little longer to kill it.

The food chain can be a brutal thing, lavalamp. Thats the way it works with or without humans in it: it is not any more or less brutal due to our existence.

Now you can of course argue that humans are unique in that we are capable of choosing whether or not to kill other animals, but be careful - you may inadvertently answer the first question I quoted from you in a way you won't like.

Jeez, may I ask how old you are? You are incredibly naive and squeamish about this issue.

 

[lavalamp]

My age is in my profile.

I also don't remember mentioning anything about human rights.

Lat me ask you a question. If you could choose how you would die, would you want to die peacfefully, or by having an electrified metal rod up your arse?

Just because the food chain is a brutal thing, it doesn't mean that we have to be. If it is neccesary to kill animals, why does it have to be in such a cruel way?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by lavalamp
I also don't remember mentioning anything about human rights.

You suggested that they should have many of the same rights as humans. The rights of humans are called "human rights."

Lat me ask you a question. If you could choose how you would die, would you want to die peacfefully, or by having an electrified metal rod up your arse?

I would of course choose to die peacefully, but that really isn't relevant to this issue. A cow can't ask a mountain lion to make his death as quick and painless as possible.

Just because the food chain is a brutal thing, it doesn't mean that we have to be. If it is neccesary to kill animals, why does it have to be in such a cruel way?

How would you suggest we do it?

 

[lavalamp]

I did not mentin human rights as that would imply that they are species specific.

We aren't mountain lions, but for some reason you keep drawing the analogy between us and the lions.

I'm sorry, but I'm not skilled in the art of slaughter, therefore I can't think of many pleasant ways to die right now. I'm sure that there are people out there who can though.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by russ_watters
How would you suggest we do it?

with respect

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Monique
with respect

Some religions have rules on animal killing. Like Islam.

 

[Another God]

well, like it or not, rights are species specific, even if you desire otherwise or proclaim to thinik otherwise. At some point or another, you too cross the line where u differentiate that that lizard deservees to live, "because I like lizards" but "that damn mosquito must die now!"

The reason Human Rights have such a privledge over all other animal, plant, bacteria and archae life forms is because we are the only species with which we can safely enter into social bargains with. We have a reasonable basis upon which we know we can generally trust each other to behave certain ways, and do certain things to help each other out. Cows, sheep, Mice and Rats do not. They will not enter social constructs with any of us, and so are of no use to us, other than a use we force onto them (one of food, or of experimentation).

Dogs on the otherhand are generally treated differently. Why do you suppose that would be? Would it be because dogs do enter a form of social contract with us? We feed them, and in return they (origianlly hunted for us) protect our house from robbers, defend us, and enjoy our company... Dogs are given special rights above other animals. Cats also receive similar rights, for similar reasons.

So, is experimentation on animals OK? Absolutely, becauase in the end, Humans are the only species which we are actually concerned with (at least, immediately concerned with...Secondarily we do desire safety for all species, otherwise we would feel bad for no longer being able to see lions, and tigers etc in the zoos of the future)

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Monique
with respect

With respect for what exactly?

What is respect all about anyway? Respect for the fact that a lion can kill you: That I understand. Respect for someones intelligence over you... etc I understand those uses of the word respect. But having respect, while killing a cow... what does that mean? Respecting the cow as a docile creature, specifically bred over 5000 or more years to be perfect for human consumption? I'll bet there is a lot of respect for that.

 

[Monique]

If you don't know what I mean with handling an animal with respect then, well..

Slaughtering animals or experimenting on them without any respect, without acknowledging that they too have the right to live a decent life, is plain unethical and wrong.

How about animals in a zoo, we keep them there solely for our pleasure. Does that mean we put them alone into wired cages, or do we respect the animal and try to recreate their natural habitat as closely as possible? That is having respect for the living. We put them into a cage, but better make that cage as pleasant as possible.

 

[FZ+]

Ultimately, it boils down to this. We are humans. If we have to make the choice, we protect our own kind's interests.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Monique
with respect

I don't know what that means either.

To an American indian, respect meant praying over the animal after you kill it. For a Jew it means certian ritualistic methods of killing it (and prayer). So is it strictly a religious thing?

Slaughtering animals or experimenting on them without any respect, without acknowledging that they too have the right to live a decent life, is plain unethical and wrong.

What rights do animals have and where do they come from?

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by russ_watters
What rights do animals have and where do they come from?

This question precisely gets to the heart of what i was trying to spell out earlier. Human rights are different from any other rights out there, because human rights come from humans, for humans. All other rights are from humans, for other things. Without humans in the first place, there would be no concept of rights.

Our rights are special because we create them as a way to maintain our society. We have an interpersonal agreement that we won't hurt each other and that we will infact help each other.

This agreement has not be partaken by any animals (some act as if they have, and so we treat them as such (EG Dogs), but if they for a split second act otherwise (Say by biting someone) then we kill them. ('Put them to sleep')). The only rights that are truley attributable to any animals are the rights we ascribe them, as objects of our desire to see/touch/experience.

The only right a mouse has to life, is in fact the right that we, individually or as a society, ascribe to it based on our desire to have it fulfill some purpose.

Like it or not, Rights are a social construct, not an Absolute fact that exists as a contingent truth.

 

[Monique]

Russ, respect has nothing to do with rituals or religion, silly idea.

Could you people at least acknowledge the fact that we should respect animals and avoid needless suffering?

You people seem to think that we are humans and as such we can do anything we want. How about people who live like animals? They don't have human rights? How about mentally retarded? What in us humans makes us so special that another animal is so much lower?

Yes, if a dog poses a danger to society we kill it, does that mean it is ok to stone it to death or let it dehydrate or just starve it to death? No, it isn't, and why?

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I don't know what that means either.

To an American indian, respect meant praying over the animal after you kill it. For a Jew it means certian ritualistic methods of killing it (and prayer). So is it strictly a religious thing?

btw, there is a difference between having respect and paying respect.

 

[Zero]

I think respecting the suffering of animals is important, in order to be able to respect ourselves. Empathy is part of what makes us human, and I think it is a valuable thing.

 

[Monique]

Thank you Zero, I am starting to like already :P

 

[Another God]

Its not that I have ascribed something more to humans, claiming humans to have special rights, or higher morality, or priveledges over animals etc, but rather that I am human, and as an Animal, I will do whatever I want to further my own needs. You too are an animal and you too will do whatever you want to further your own needs. Combined, we are a society of animals, working together to further the needs of the community.

Animals which are not like us, are treated as outsiders because they are precisely that. Outsiders.

So when it comes to killing an animal quickly or slowly, painlessly or painfully, we don't "have" to do either, its just that we have nothing to gain from doing it slowly and painfully, and the fact is, because we are social organisms we have empathetic feelings in us, the ability to understand (to some extent) the feelings etc of other organisms. We have this ability so we can interact with each other, but as a side effect, if we recognise 'suffering' or 'pleasure' behaviours in other organisms, then we associate them to human behaviours and so empathise with them.

So why do we not like the idea of killing a cow slowly by torturing it to death? Because there is no real advantage to be gained in doing this (normally) and when we do it, 99% of us will feel terrible about it because we can empathise with the actions and noises it makes, understanding the pain. There is no inherent moral obligation to be 'Humane' in killing it, but it makes us feeler better about ourselves if we do so.

Because of this fact though, this concept of being Humane has snowballed somewhat to the point where we beleieve that every instance of recognising suffering in an animal is bad, and so must be avoided (because it makes us feel bad), and so people complain about practices which cause pain like behaviour in animals as they are only seeing the negatives.

I'll leave it at that for now, I should get back to work, since that's where I am...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Monique
Russ, respect has nothing to do with rituals or religion, silly idea...
btw, there is a difference between having respect and paying respect.

Fair enough, but the Indian who prayed over the deer will also say to have respect you have to show (pay) respect.

Could you people at least acknowledge the fact that we should respect animals and avoid needless suffering?

Sure. As soon as you tell me what that means, how to do that, what animals it applies to, and why. Is it simply a matter of avoiding needless suffering? To me, that has nothing to do with respect and that certainly doesn't apply universally - not to mention its also kinda vague.

I have my own ideas on the subject, but I'd like to know yours. I seriously, honestly, do not know what you mean by respecting animals. I'm not trying to be coy or mean (except maybe in trying to convey its not as simple as just saying "have respect"). The dictionary has a pretty broad and vague definition for example: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=respect

Having been in the military I know what it means in that context. I know what it means with regard to my parents. But people even have different ideas about those things.

A.G., you're describing the situation pretty well and in line with the way I see it, but that type of answer is what I was (still am) trying to elicit from Monique.

 

[Monique]

Combined, we are a society of animals, working together to further the needs of the community.

I thought we were here for the sake of the planet, not the human race. Funny that views like this don't fall under racism..

There is no inherent moral obligation to be 'Humane' in killing it, but it makes us feeler better about ourselves if we do so.

The paradox.. what is moral? A moral is something that is socially accepted and makes us feel good, therefore it is a moral obligation to be humane in killing it.

I want to ask both of you: do you live with pets? At the moment we have got 4 large dogs and 4 cats, and some other animals. Once you understand the psychology of these 'lower' animals, you'll realize we are not all that. And no, I am not projecting my feelings upon them.

Yes, I understand the need of experimentation on animals, but if you don't know how to have respect for living organisms, you are not entirely human.

Sure. As soon as you tell me what that means, how to do that, what animals it applies to, and why. Is it simply a matter of avoiding needless suffering? To me, that has nothing to do with respect and that certainly doesn't apply universally - not to mention its also kinda vague.

Hypothetical situation: if were to go out in a spaceship and found a world with a life form, we can just whipe it out without blinking? No, you'll say, we have to bring out our scalpels and cut them open, put the remaining ones in observation and take over the planet, since we are humans and we need to advance. You must've seen startrek.. what is their policy and is it wrong?

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Monique
I thought we were here for the sake of the planet, not the human race. Funny that views like this don't fall under racism..

And what made you think that?

Monique, think about this for a while, just about what we are saying completely out of context, as an abstract idea. Think about the basis for it, and why we are saying it. Neither Russ nor I are saying that we shouldn't 'be humane' nor that we shouldn't try to avoid torturing animals, and killing relentlessly, nor that we should plunder the Earth no matter what. Neither of us are that stupid.

What russ and I are talking about, is the very basis for every moral that we have constructed for ourselves. The way I see it, the ethics that our society has come to hold have been constructed over countless millenia from evolution initially, and then social constructs finally, and now we have fooled ourselves into believing certain absolutes about our actions, forgetting the reasons for them. I actually find this a major problem with laws these days too: People get so caught up in following the rules, they often forget why they are following the rules, to what ends the rule was actually created for in the first place, and eventually act in ways which contradict the purpose of the rule by following it to such a strict degree that they have imposed upon themselves.

Why do we have a moral imperitive? What is morality? Morality is a set of rules that enable us to work together as a community to make each and everyone of our respective lives easier. Thats all it is.

And so every action we make needs to be made with that ends in mind.

Are we here for the sake of the planet? In a way, absolutely we are: We need to be, because we need this planet. Without this planet, there would be no where for our community to exist. We would die. We need this planet: We need the plants and the animals with it to maintain a viable ecosystem.

but being here 'for the planet' is only a means to the ends of sustaining our society, and in the end, sustaining our own lives.

The paradox.. what is moral? A moral is something that is socially accepted and makes us feel good, therefore it is a moral obligation to be humane in killing it.

All things considered equal: Should we kill painfully or painlessly? It would be a moral obligation to kill humanly assuming other people knew of it, otherwise it would be apersonal decision based on whether u 'enjoyed' killing it inhumanely or not. Moral obligation only comes into the picture when other people are present/implicated in the picture.

A moral is something that helps to maintain the stability of our society. (my personal definition. I will soon re-write my treatise on ethics if you want, and we can get right down into ethics (My current favourite topic)(Again))

I want to ask both of you: do you live with pets? And no, I am not projecting my feelings upon them.

What makes u think either of us are accusing them of being 'lower' and not able to be compared to humans? I called humans animals, because we are somewhat equal. The only difference, is that Humans can express their desire to be part of our functional community, and can express their understandings of the rules.

outside of that, as far as I am concerned, humans are no different to animals, and as unpopular as this view will be, I don't much see the point of treating humans who can't interact practically with our society as something so special. (PS: Before you go and accuse me of all sorts of socially unaceptable things because of the historic reputation of Nazis and various other ideas of killing off the 'unfit' etc, don't think I am closed to other points of view, I am just as yet unable to justify any other stance. Everything I am presenting here, is a theoretical principle which makes absolute logical sense to me. I am mearly awaiting reasoned arguments to show me the error in my ideas.)

Yes, I understand the need of experimentation on animals, but if you don't know how to have respect for living organisms, you are not entirely human.

I'm sure we know how to 'have respect', its just that we don't like the use of the word respect. I don't think it conveys the real relationship at all well. Empathy is a much better word, and we all tend to feel that. As such, we don't like killing animals. It makes us feel terrible. But we only get that feeling when we run over cats, or hit kangaroos, or kill other cute animals. We would hate to kill a dolphin because we can see ourselves in them... etc.

But how many times have you regretted killing a mosquito? Have u ever been fishing? Dragging a fish out of its habitat, by its cheek, only to let it slowly suffocate to death. I get the impression that snail pellets aren't very nice to snails... etc. its the animals which we empathise less with, that we feel more able to kill at will, and possiby even enjoy killing.

Hypothetical situation: if were to go out in a spaceship and found a world with a life form, we can just whipe it out without blinking? No, you'll say, we have to bring out our scalpels and cut them open, put the remaining ones in observation and take over the planet, since we are humans and we need to advance. You must've seen startrek.. what is their policy and is it wrong?

What are the organisms like?

Are they like: Bacteria? (Yes, we would cut them open etc) Dogs? ( We would treat them like we treat dogs) etc

We would treat alien life forms very much the way we treat our own planets life forms.

If they were intelligent, then we would try to amalgamate them into our larger community in some way, hoping they would be our friends, and help us to live better lives. If they didn't, then we would either try to live without them, or we would exploit them. (I'm just saying what would happen, not what I advocate). From there, there is a potential of going to war and killing etc.

In any of the above situations, I guarantee that first chance we have, someone would cut them open and see how they work.

Human nature, and I am sure you understand this already, u just need to let yourself see it through all of the social programming that we have been spoonfed from birth as to what is 'right' and 'wrong' in the absolute sense.

 

[Monique]

Ok, I am starting to get the point now. What makes a moral justifiable: if it serves us a purpose in surviving.

Why is it morally forbidden to kill or cause suffering to other humans? Because they have the power to get back at us and return the service. Why don't we have any moral obligations to the ones who are not of the human race? What will they do, kill us in our sleep?

But since humans show empathy for other life forms, we actually cause pain and suffering to humans by mistreating animals. Those humans will feel offended and get back at the offender. Thus leading me to believe it IS morally unjustifiable to cause needless suffering to animals.

 

[selfAdjoint]

So in your view, the basis of morality is fear of revenge?

 

[Monique]

No, but AG suggested that moral behaviour needs to have an evolutionary advantage. I was trying to get his point. The only way would be fear for our own being. Revenge is not the right word.. just fear of losing our own well-being.

Empathy surely is the point of the discussion, people rather donate to Greenpeace to save sealions than crockadiles. Why don't we generally show empathy towards crockadiles? They are dangerous. We still feel scientific importance though, for maintaining such an identifyable species alive and we also empathice with such a creature with four legs and two eyes.

When we come to insect though, I guess empathy is totally lost, six legged critters.. people don't identify with them. I still wouldn't pull out their legs one by one, I don't kill annoying flies either and I feel bad when vacuuming up spiders, although I hate spiders very much.. I'd rather keep them in their little corner.

 

[Loren Booda]

Definition of a pet: an animal one wouldn't eat unless to survive.

That makes most animals (including humans) pets.