|
|
#31
05-04-2007, 03:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Animal Research
[ QUOTE ]
evaluating this kind of action it seems to me that doing so from the animal's POV is the way to go. [/ QUOTE ] As silly as this statement is, people actually do this alot i.e. ascribe human qualities to non humans. 
|
|
#32
05-09-2007, 06:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Animal Research
Tablerat,
I agree with your reasons for why we should study rats. I think your defense of why we don't study babies isn't addressing my question. My question is really, "why shouldn't we study babies?" Imagine scenarios where studying babies was feasible. I'm not saying these conditions exist today, just that they could exist at some time. Maybe use unwanted babies. Maybe pay people to be impregnated and give up their baby. Maybe clone babies. Whatever. The point is, there are lots of imaginable circumstances in which baby research would be possible. If you agree that there could be circumstances where baby research would be feasible, then it seems of interest to decide whether or not it could be worthwhile. Saying, "right now its no good for economic reasons" is fine, but not really addressing what I'm asking. EDF, you guys really dropped the ball on this one. Why has nobody seriously tried attempting to answer my questions except for zeebo and tablerat? Nobody has even touched the question that I think is most important, "is someone willing to test on rats also committed to being willing to test on babies?" I think the answer is yes. Most people say no. I have given good reasons for my belief, others have not. I know this is a sticky issue, but come on. What gives? I'll give some more food for thought. I've been thinking about this and talking a bit with some friends. The biggest problem with proposed baby testing is that it might suggest that humans are expendable. That is, if it is OK to crack baby skulls open and look inside because they're bred for science, why not do the same for people on death row? One can see how this could quickly turn into a slippery slope- if babies and prisoners are OK, what about human vegetables? If all of them, what about the mentally deficient? If them, what about the less intelligent?... and so on. I don't think very many [at least outside this forum] want to accept a world where the smart enslave the dumb just 'cause they can. My first reaction to this problem would be to say that humans simply are expendable. "The unique sanctity of human life" is just something our chauvinistic species made up. Its easy to presume that deer might have a similar view where deer are not expendable because they are in a class all by themselves too. In saying that humans are expendable, though, there has to be some cut off to avoid the slippery slope. I'd say that an easy way of making this cut off that might make sense is complicity. If possible subjects are asked whether or not they are willing to be tested on and say "no," then they should not be forced to be tested on. Those who cannot respond or understand the question will have to have more rules specific to their particuclar case, but in general, if there is hope that they will one day function, and especially if the family does not consent, they cannot be asked. The key difference with the babies being bred for science is that it is OK with everyone except the baby. Babies are expendable, so this is OK. I admit this view as sketched out is very rough and I haven't thought about it but more than a few minutes, but I hope that it will at least open up discussion. One last thought, to those of you who are saying that rat testing is ethical because "we are a more advanced species," how do you feel about the possibility of other life forms enslaving and torturing us simply because "they are more advanced" - that is, because they can ? That is, what if hyperintelligent martians are somewhere in the universe and know about us. Is it acceptable for them to come here and do whatever they want to us in the name of research? I think this is a very tough pill to swallow for someone committed to universal morality, and may ultimately show that we are not justified in testing rats. The obvious response is probably going to be, "we'll take our chances," but I'll give you guys something to do and let you evaluate that one for now.
|
|
#33
05-09-2007, 06:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Animal Research
[ QUOTE ]
EDF, you guys really dropped the ball on this one. Why has nobody seriously tried attempting to answer my questions except for zeebo and tablerat? Nobody has even touched the question that I think is most important, "is someone willing to test on rats also committed to being willing to test on babies?" I think the answer is yes. Most people say no. I have given good reasons for my belief, others have not. I know this is a sticky issue, but come on. What gives? [/ QUOTE ] I thought my answer was ok: ------------ I think the main reason we care about babies more is for whatever reason, humans naturally show more compassion towards other humans, than they do towards animals. Most of the time. We've evolved to not want to hurt babies. I think that's about it ------------ do you care to comment on that? And no, I wouldn't test on babies cause it makes me feel bad, that's all there is to it. There's no ethics behind my position (unless you define 'ethical' to mean whatever makes me feel best)
|
|
#35
05-09-2007, 06:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Animal Research
Sorry I never responded HP, you gave what I take to be a very natural answer.
First, I think your claim that "we've evolved to not want to hurt babies" is vague and spurious, at least as I interpret it. If you mean that we've developed an innate trait qualified by not wanting to hurt our own kind, I would ask how you know this. And even if its true, why would we develop it and not other species? If other species have, why is ours the only one that matters? Looks like we're quickly getting down to the "more advanced" argument and I think I've given good reasons why we shouldn't accept that one. "I wouldn't want to test on babies cause it makes me feel bad, that's all there is to it" This is just not convincing. It may be fine for you personally but how can you think other people will be persuaded by this? You could use this defense to justify any other stupid behaviors, tendencies, or actions. If you want to use this, you have to at least respond to the points raised. "I don't like it" is no good by itself.
|
|
#39
05-09-2007, 07:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Animal Research
Sorry in advance for the endless string of quote-replies:
[ QUOTE ] If you mean that we've developed an innate trait qualified by not wanting to hurt our own kind [/ QUOTE ]Yes. However I don't think discussing why this is the case (people not wanting to hurt their own kind) is relevant, as long as we agree this is the case (which seems pretty obv, if only by reading this thread). [ QUOTE ] If other species have, why is ours the only one that matters? [/ QUOTE ]Because it's the most important species in regards to making ourselves feel the best. I guess I don't understand your use of the word 'matter' in regards to anything besides what makes us feel best. [ QUOTE ] It may be fine for you personally but how can you think other people will be persuaded by this? [/ QUOTE ]I don't think they will be or should. [ QUOTE ] You could use this defense to justify any other stupid behaviors, tendencies, or actions. [/ QUOTE ]I can, and I do. [ QUOTE ] If you want to use this, you have to at least respond to the points raised. "I don't like it" is no good by itself. [/ QUOTE ]if you say so. [ QUOTE ] "The unique sanctity of human life" is just something our chauvinistic species made up. [/ QUOTE ]Yeah I guess this is what I'm saying [ QUOTE ] In saying that humans are expendable, though, there has to be some cut off to avoid the slippery slope. [/ QUOTE ] Well, I'd assign a value to everyone's life, and also a value to the research. Then put everything on a scale (if I was after greater good) [ QUOTE ] "we are a more advanced species," how do you feel about the possibility of other life forms enslaving and torturing us simply because "they are more advanced" - that is, because they can ? [/ QUOTE ] That would suck. If it does, c'est la vie. That's how I would feel. [ QUOTE ] I think this is a very tough pill to swallow for someone committed to universal morality, [/ QUOTE ] This could be true, I'm not sure. In any case, it's an easy pill for me to swallow
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
