4 ms·
I'm assuming that if we would treat humans in the same way we treat rats, we would likely raise standards. Also rats are able to choose by the way. We just don
by MrQuincle 10y ago
I'm assuming that if we would treat humans in the same way we treat rats, we would likely raise standards.
Also rats are able to choose by the way. We just don't give them a choice.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y agoAre lab rats treated poorly? My (limited) experience indicates that scientists are generally as humane as they can be, and the rat lifestyle isn't any worse than say... A pet rat. Maybe Im an outlier. My point is that if your experiment requires a GMO organism, the organism can never have decided to participate, since it would require choice pre-conception. If GMOing a rat in to a forced experiment is bad, isn't doing that to a human much worse? It's still worth the cost using humans, but harm reduction would suggest using rats instead.
- MrQuincle 10y agoThe question is not about choice w.r.t. a GMO. It's about the underlying moral values behind a seemingly rhetorical question "isn't doing that to a human much worse?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Why is it so much better to force non-humans to partake in our experiments? Just swap rats and humans in your sentences and the bias is very obvious.