What are your views on animal testing?

[veloman]

[quote="Chindie

That would be unethical and indeed, illegal I believe. Useless scum? What constitutes useless scum?

[Alpaywasawesome]

Some species have been proven to be capable of feeling pain.

We don't know what other species can feel pain as well.

I think as far as possible we shouldn't inflict pain unto animals unnecessarily. But I still know that practical reasons dictate that we have to 'manipulate' animals for our benefit. We need to eat after all.

Is drug testing and research in medicine an important benefit to our species? I think so. Does drug testing inflict pain on animals? I don't know. If it does, but the end result means a cure for AIDs or Cancer ... then what?

I maintain my stand, I think that as far as possible we shouldn't inflict pain on animals. Unless it's really that necessary of a benefit then will I consider intentionally inflicting pain on animals. But I think it is not entirely necessary for testing to be done on animals. I'm sure a lot of people would willingly sign up to be human test subjects for a bit of money.

[Chindie]

Yes, we are part of nature. But you mentioned milking cows, but that is a natural resource. Cows need milked (and although it is generally through calfs, we worked around that) and we just make use of it. Sheep need sheared seasonally to make their lives more comfortable, we just make use of the by product. You can go on and on listing all this circumstantial evidence of how we manipulate the world around us but one very thing undermines your point, and that is what we do is make us of natural resources. Using animals for testing, is not natural. Pumping them full of artificial drugs is not natural. I fail to see how you can't get this point.

None of that is natural from anything other than a human perspective as our own nature given nature. Using another creatures milk is not natural, it's an example of us using an animal for our own gain.

As I said before, we manipulate things unnaturally and always have done. If you can't see that taking a wolf and taming it to help us, or breeding cows to live domesticated lives to take their milk (which is not naturally for us) is unnatural and how that links to use using animals for other unnatural purposes of benefit to us, then I'm afraid we may as well give up now.

Why is it unethical? Why is it unethical to put a murderer for good use by testing drugs on them which will better our lives, but it is ethical to let them sit and rot in a cell?

By useless scum I basically mean murderers and rapists and any other really bad criminals.

I don't mean throwing a Redknapp style tax evader in a lab, if that is what you are insinuating.

Because we treat humans with rights and dignities. Whether you like it or not, we made law and morality that we legislated and subsumed into our society, in which experimenting on even the lowest of the low is considered inhuman. I could step into Godwins law territory here but I won't. It is often said that the measure of the humanity of a society is how it treats its prisoners.

It is ethical to imprison law breakers as we have decreed that punishment be given in the form of the removal of freedoms - that doesn't include medical experiments and I'm sorry to say the idea disgusts me.

[snowychap]

Why is it unethical?

I'd suggest that asking that question would mean that there is pretty much no sense in anyone trying to answer it.

You aren't asking, "What are ethics and what actions are ethical?" but saying, "In my opinion, it is perfectly ethical to use other human beings (the basis for who is chosen being something completely arbitrary and subjective) in any way that I see fit (in this instance as subjects of experiments). Why isn't it so?"

If you can proffer such a notion as a reasonable course of action then it really is pointless to try and disabuse you of it.

p.s. Only drugs and only on rodents.

[rjw63]

Useless scum? What constitutes useless scum?

My sister and her hubby work in the Prison Service, he has got over 30 years in the job. They now work at a Young Offenders Institute, and they tell me that the prison population at this point in time is the most hopeless, inbred, remorseless bunch of neanderthals there has ever been.

So I say test drugs these pricks

[paddy]

For those saying test on prisoners maybe we could do a deal with those on death row and agree to keep them alive if they allowed drugs to be tested on them?

Again, it's not going to happen, but it's about the only way it could.

[El Zen]

As I said before, we manipulate things unnaturally and always have done. If you can't see that taking a wolf and taming it to help us, or breeding cows to live domesticated lives to take their milk (which is not naturally for us) is unnatural and how that links to use using animals for other unnatural purposes of benefit to us, then I'm afraid we may as well give up now.

Whilst I agree with your stance, I don't know if I agree that milking cows and using their skin for clothing is unnatural. Using other animals (or plants) for your own purpose is somthing almost every living organism does all the time. We're just doing it on a much more sophisticated level.

Because we treat humans with rights and dignities. Whether you like it or not, we made law and morality that we legislated and subsumed into our society, in which experimenting on even the lowest of the low is considered inhuman. I could step into Godwins law territory here but I won't. It is often said that the measure of the humanity of a society is how it treats its prisoners.

Again, obviously, I agree. But I think the point that is trying to be made is not that we should do these things on humans, but that we shouldn't use any living creature for testing drugs etc. Or rather, that animals should be given the same moral value as humans. That is a more interesting debate, and one of our more famous contemporary philosophers Peter Singer has been advocating a a view akin to CED's. He constructs his argument thus: For us to give greater moral value to humans that animals, we have to point to a defining quality that makes us "better" than animals. If you accept that, you will struggle to defend your, in Singer's words, speciesist views. Saying humans have an inherent grater value than animals is no better than saying the white race have greater value than the black race. In other words, speciesism is no better than raccism.

Now, Singer, and to an extent, CED constructs a logically valid argument. But personally I find it madness. First of all, because it is based on finding an objective set of morals, which is impossible. There are other reasons as well, but I thought it would be interesting to see if anyone would take the deabate from here before I go ahead and give the correct answers

[kurtsimonw]

Nope. Test on humans.

Good use of criminals if you ask me.

[TheWalletInspector]

Depends if it is the kind of drugs that could change an animal into a zombie-animal tbh.

[starsailor9774]

If a million animals die and they find a cure for Cancer/AIDS etc then thats fine with me.

Cosmetics, no.

They most likely have......... and they still haven't.

I agree with CarewsEyebrowDesigner...... test on the lowest of the low.

[snowychap]

the lowest of the low

Those keen on experimenting upon other human beings, perhaps?

[thomb2233]

Only drugs - on all animals. I assume the people who think that there should be absolutely no tests conducted on animals will not be making use of the benefits gained from them in the future out of protest.

[starsailor9774]

It is often said that the measure of the humanity of a society is how it treats its prisoners..

I'd much rather it was measured on how it treats it's sick and needy..... but if the well being of murderers and rapist's are top of your list, then i'm sure you're in a very small minority.

[leviramsey]

A few years back I was in a relationship with a girl who was really into the whole PETA and ALF thing. I managed to be vegan for a couple of months even (the things one will do for some pussy!). She actually tried to get me to go to a protest against testing pet food on animals...

Me, I have no problem with testing on animals, though I can at least respect the folks who are vegan who oppose it and so forth. I've met my share of people who don't think there should be animal testing on ethical grounds and then have a hamburger.

It's our privilege to do this stuff as the super-duper-predators. I'm fairly sure that when a super-super-duper-predator evolves that removes us from our apex, that the new master species will happily use us for whatever benefit it can gain.

[starsailor9774]

the lowest of the low

Those keen on experimenting upon other human beings, perhaps?

Some human being's deserve to be experimented on.

[Chindie]

the lowest of the low

Those keen on experimenting upon other human beings, perhaps?

Some human being's deserve to be experimented on.

No they don't whatsoever.

The very idea is vile.

Can I suggest, that I don't like this idea, and think that if I did I'd have you added to the list for experimenting?

Nice isn't it? That's as subjective as it is, on a purely practical non-moral level.

[snowychap]

if the well being of murderers and rapist's are top of your list, then i'm sure you're in a very small minority

Only that isn't the meaning of what Chindie mentioned and I suspect you know that.

[leviramsey]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/20/Josef-mengele.jpg/200px-Josef-mengele.jpg"]

the lowest of the low

Those keen on experimenting upon other human beings, perhaps?

Some human being's deserve to be experimented on.

[snowychap]

^

:crylaugh:

Some human being's deserve to be experimented on.

I'm sure many murderers, rapists and others whom you might include in your personal 'lowest of the low' (depending on your mood that day) have had exactly the same thoughts about other human beings.

[Chindie]

Whilst I agree with your stance, I don't know if I agree that milking cows and using their skin for clothing is unnatural. Using other animals (or plants) for your own purpose is somthing almost every living organism does all the time. We're just doing it on a much more sophisticated level.

My point on cows at least is more that we have manipulated the animal to live for our needs - that is not natural. Yet there seems to be no problem with this. We lock them in fields and run every aspect of their lives for us to gain from them. It's just another example of humans using an animal in a way that is unnatural. No other animal does that, to my knowledge, and it subverts nature as it would have it, which was CED's initial and swiftly dropped point. He claimed that using an animal in a way that was unnatural was wrong, something we do all the time in less controversial manners.

Just to be clear . If things were left to nature, we may wear skins (well, we did) from kills we caught, but were nature untouched we wouldn't be keeping these animals and manipulating them to our needs.

Again, obviously, I agree. But I think the point that is trying to be made is not that we should do these things on humans, but that we shouldn't use any living creature for testing drugs etc. Or rather, that animals should be given the same moral value as humans. That is a more interesting debate, and one of our more famous contemporary philosophers Peter Singer has been advocating a a view akin to CED's. He constructs his argument thus: For us to give greater moral value to humans that animals, we have to point to a defining quality that makes us "better" than animals. If you accept that, you will struggle to defend your, in Singer's words, speciesist views. Saying humans have an inherent grater value than animals is no better than saying the white race have greater value than the black race. In other words, speciesism is no better than raccism.

Now, Singer, and to an extent, CED constructs a logically valid argument. But personally I find it madness. First of all, because it is based on finding an objective set of morals, which is impossible. There are other reasons as well, but I thought it would be interesting to see if anyone would take the deabate from here before I go ahead and give the correct answers

I think people involved in the political threads that have ever seen me post would know my deep distain for philosophy but I'd have a crack at this off the top of my not terribly well enlightened head.

I'd say that the social aspect of humanity plays a massive role in how and why we deem morals on ourselves, animals have rough social hierarchys, in some cases, but generally live ina state of anarchy that we have moved from. Animals don't have any reason to respect a morality (indeed, nor could they on a practical level, obviously ), but for the greater good of the species as a whole we've developed out of anarchy and thus need a morality to maintain the order of our world.

Or I could be talking out of my arse, philosophy was never my bag.