4 ms·

Finally! I think it was obvious decades ago that this was ethically wrong, but we were blinded by the benefits to us.

by adamc 11y ago

vdaniuk 11y ago
>was ethically wrong Debatable and depends on the choice of either deontological or consequentialist theory of ethics.
- StefanKarpinski 11y ago
  Yes, hiding immoral, cruel behavior behind obscure words and abstract theories is a time-honored tradition.
- grt178 11y ago
  If you believe Peter Singer's argument, then regardless of a deontological or consequentialist viewpoint, you must accept experimentation on mentally retarded humans in order to accept experimentation on great apes. Neither deontology nor consequentialism has any justification for specicism.
  - rtl49 11y ago
    Why should one accept Peter Singer's argument? For instance, if you regard morality as a framework for negotiating conflicts of interest within the species, it could make sense to reject experimentation on handicapped humans while allowing experimentation on apes belonging to other species.
readme 11y ago
The article makes it seem more like there's just no demand for research on chimps anymore.
- goodJobWalrus 11y ago
  Interestingly, the only ones who demand it seem to be people who do conservation work for the chimps.
kiba 11y ago
We experiment on lab mice, in which we torture them, give them cancer, force them to eat unhealthy diets, and so on. It's also great for medical research. But on the other hand, mices living in the wild also meet brutal ends, either by starvation or predation or natural diseases. So, where do we draw the line?
- goodJobWalrus 11y ago
  > which we torture them I'm not sure to which extent this is true. From what I read (for example S. Pinker mentions this in his Better Nature..) these days all research on animals needs to be ok-ed by ethics committees, and the types of famous research from the past we read about wouldn't fly today. Pinker mentions explicitly his experience as an undergrad with experiments that involved rat torture and says that would never happen today. I guess people who actually work at labs would know more about this, but it appears that things have changed even for lab rats (even though we still destroy them mercilessly when they become pests to us.

Finally! I think it was obvious decades ago that this was ethically wrong, but we were blinded by the benefits to us.

by adamc 11y ago

Finally! I think it was obvious decades ago that this was ethically wrong, but we were blinded by the benefits to us.

vdaniuk 11y ago

>was ethically wrong Debatable and depends on the choice of either deontological or consequentialist theory of ethics.

StefanKarpinski 11y ago
Yes, hiding immoral, cruel behavior behind obscure words and abstract theories is a time-honored tradition.
grt178 11y ago
If you believe Peter Singer's argument, then regardless of a deontological or consequentialist viewpoint, you must accept experimentation on mentally retarded humans in order to accept experimentation on great apes. Neither deontology nor consequentialism has any justification for specicism.
- rtl49 11y ago
  Why should one accept Peter Singer's argument? For instance, if you regard morality as a framework for negotiating conflicts of interest within the species, it could make sense to reject experimentation on handicapped humans while allowing experimentation on apes belonging to other species.

readme 11y ago

The article makes it seem more like there's just no demand for research on chimps anymore.

goodJobWalrus 11y ago
Interestingly, the only ones who demand it seem to be people who do conservation work for the chimps.

kiba 11y ago

We experiment on lab mice, in which we torture them, give them cancer, force them to eat unhealthy diets, and so on. It's also great for medical research. But on the other hand, mices living in the wild also meet brutal ends, either by starvation or predation or natural diseases. So, where do we draw the line?

goodJobWalrus 11y ago
> which we torture them I'm not sure to which extent this is true. From what I read (for example S. Pinker mentions this in his Better Nature..) these days all research on animals needs to be ok-ed by ethics committees, and the types of famous research from the past we read about wouldn't fly today. Pinker mentions explicitly his experience as an undergrad with experiments that involved rat torture and says that would never happen today. I guess people who actually work at labs would know more about this, but it appears that things have changed even for lab rats (even though we still destroy them mercilessly when they become pests to us.