Re: Animal Research
Howard,
How do you know that your distinction between babies and rats is one that should be trusted? Hard to say "because everyone agrees" because there have been a lot of times when everyone agrees but they're all wrong or they all end up doing something that in hindsight seems they shouldn't have. I think that the appeal you mention, the intuitive appeal, is strong but insufficient to deal with the problem at hand. Your argument, like HPs, has very little force with me for this reason. I'm trying to give reasons for what I believe. You're just saying, "This is what I believe and I don't have to justify it because the problem at hand is vague." At least, that's what I take to be the case in the examples you've given- its hard to draw a line for hardcoreness in porn, etc. because we're dealing with vague concepts. But I've argued that the concepts involved in this case are not vague. If they were, how could we possibly justify rat experiments?
HP,
I don't think that system is flawed at all. That's the one I [think I] use! It certainly has a place, but I don't think its this thread or this issue, for that matter. The reason I think this is that I happen to think that feeling bad in this case is just a bias - not genetic- and that if it turned out that doing research on babies was fine, there may be a point where the general bias shifts. I agree that it is this very bias that is why we are not doing research right now, but I think that it very well could change in time. It might change if we come to view the problem as scientifically, logically, and ethically acceptable and think that there would be big benefits to doing research on babies. I suppose that's why I want to look at this issue in a logical, scientific way.
Duke,
1. [ QUOTE ]
if we were widely self-destructive, we wouldn't last long on the planet.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not proposing that we be widely self-destructive. Testing on a few thousand babies, or even a few million is not like nuclear holocaust.
2. What makes you think our genes are what make us think babies are cute?
3. [ QUOTE ]
What benefit do we get from doing studies on animals? We can learn better how to either fight diseases that may affect us, find ways to repair ourselves better, or find ways to lessen our own pain. All of these things make us more likely to succeed against various plagues and other forms of death.
So, saying that something like animal testing is unethical is on par with saying that you don't value our own survival over that of rats, as long as you take a big-picture approach.
Like, you may be fine with your ethics telling you that you're no more worthy of living than a rat is. If even a majority of people felt that way, well, we'd face extinction. At the very least, our numbers would reduce substantially.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why can't I sub in "baby" in place of "rat" here if I accept your reasoning?
I highly doubt that animal research is as necessary to our survival as you construe it to be. After all, other animals don't do research on us and they're still around. A lot of their populations will grow if we let them. And if I say that rats have as worthy of living as we are, then why would I be so alarmed at the prospect of us dying instead of the rats?
BF,
All we need to create conditions necessary to study babies:
1) we think they will give us valuable information
2) we think its OK to do so
|