3 ms·

I agree with that. I don't know how that's a defense of this specific instance though. I'm sure there are valuable things to learn here... but I'm not sure how

I agree with that. I don't know how that's a defense of this specific instance though. I'm sure there are valuable things to learn here... but I'm not sure how you can justify these methods, even though they are the way to get the answer most surely and quickly.

MperorM 7y ago
Viewed in isolation I don't think it is either. In a society that in practice completely disregards the moral status of non-human animals, I don't think the scientists are acting out of line. They are doing negligibly more harm than the average meat-eater.
s1artibartfast 7y ago
It is pretty easy to justify the methods most of the time. Animal testing is often the best, if not only way to get data. The data may lead to the betterment of human lives, so you weigh the potential human benefit against the lives of the mice. Most animal researchers believe it would be unethical to not conduct the testing. The studies should still be run in a way to minimize the number of animals while collecting the best possible data. Source: experience in animal testing.
- nikofeyn 7y ago
  > The data may lead to the betterment of human lives, so you weigh the potential human benefit against the lives of the mice. > Most animal researchers believe it would be unethical to not conduct the testing. but this is what's so bothersome. why is human experience put above that of the mouse? in this specific example, it's even worse. stress in modern day society is almost entirely self-induced from a civilization/societal point of view. humans are very good at building overly complex meta structures in our lives, all of which contribute heavily to stress because it's unbelievably hard to navigate these unnatural systems. so now, mice have to suffer because of our own inability to control ourselves? i think the ethical argument you mentioned is quite a stretch when view in this real light.
  - keenmaster 7y ago
    That logic opens a metaphysical can of worms. If a mouse = a human, does a roundworm = mouse = human? What is the irreducible essence of human-equivalent life? What are the proofs behind this metaphysical value point, and why should sufficiently large creatures, or creatures that feel pain, or creatures that think, all get those points in a 1:1 ratio? Why not other creatures, or why not a different ratio? To say, one way or the other, "because that is what is right," would be a tautology. Furthermore, under that ethical system, killing an uncontainable fox in a henhouse is morally virtuous, equivalent to saving 10 humans. Or is it? Those 10 hens are causing an insect genocide, by consuming tons of plants that otherwise would have sustained thousands of insects. Ethical standards are both arbitrary and necessary. They're arbitrary because we choose them, and necessary because they optimize for our goals. Those goals are themselves implicit in our choice of ethical standards. My ethical system assigns the highest weights to human health and happiness. That also takes into account climate change, because I temporally discount large adverse climate events from the future and consider their effect on our progeny. I don't disregard animal life, I just place human life at the top of my ethical pyramid. If you value human and rodent life equally, and therefore human and rodent suffering equally, then I believe your ethical standards are as arbitrary as mine. You just have a different optimization function, and it is at odds, for better or worse, with that of most of humanity. What we can be most certain of is, generally, the revealed ethical system of most cultures, as manifested by their customs and laws (excluding the myriad effects of autocratic regimes and the cultural stunting that they entail). We can also be sure of our physical location, which determines the cultural mileu and ethical standards which are used to judge our actions. Furthermore, through empirical studies, we can measure the alignment of ethical systems to their goals and adjust course. We cannot, however, find an objective ethical system. It does not exist. We should not be bothered by that any more than we're bothered by the lack of a magic genie lamp or Velveeta volcano. All of that is to say, your equation of: cost of mouse suffering > widespread benefits of resulting drugs, is simply a preference. It can be restated as "I and a few others who share my views prefer that the lab mice not suffer, even if the result helps millions of humans." Even if you actually believe that the mouse testing is only wrong because it is in pursuit of something ostensibly cosmetic, or, as you stated, because we have made life more difficult for ourselves through over-abstraction and animals shouldn't suffer the consequences, your ethical standards are not any less arbitrary.

MperorM 7y ago

Viewed in isolation I don't think it is either. In a society that in practice completely disregards the moral status of non-human animals, I don't think the scientists are acting out of line. They are doing negligibly more harm than the average meat-eater.

s1artibartfast 7y ago

It is pretty easy to justify the methods most of the time. Animal testing is often the best, if not only way to get data. The data may lead to the betterment of human lives, so you weigh the potential human benefit against the lives of the mice. Most animal researchers believe it would be unethical to not conduct the testing. The studies should still be run in a way to minimize the number of animals while collecting the best possible data. Source: experience in animal testing.

nikofeyn 7y ago
> The data may lead to the betterment of human lives, so you weigh the potential human benefit against the lives of the mice. > Most animal researchers believe it would be unethical to not conduct the testing. but this is what's so bothersome. why is human experience put above that of the mouse? in this specific example, it's even worse. stress in modern day society is almost entirely self-induced from a civilization/societal point of view. humans are very good at building overly complex meta structures in our lives, all of which contribute heavily to stress because it's unbelievably hard to navigate these unnatural systems. so now, mice have to suffer because of our own inability to control ourselves? i think the ethical argument you mentioned is quite a stretch when view in this real light.
- keenmaster 7y ago
  That logic opens a metaphysical can of worms. If a mouse = a human, does a roundworm = mouse = human? What is the irreducible essence of human-equivalent life? What are the proofs behind this metaphysical value point, and why should sufficiently large creatures, or creatures that feel pain, or creatures that think, all get those points in a 1:1 ratio? Why not other creatures, or why not a different ratio? To say, one way or the other, "because that is what is right," would be a tautology. Furthermore, under that ethical system, killing an uncontainable fox in a henhouse is morally virtuous, equivalent to saving 10 humans. Or is it? Those 10 hens are causing an insect genocide, by consuming tons of plants that otherwise would have sustained thousands of insects. Ethical standards are both arbitrary and necessary. They're arbitrary because we choose them, and necessary because they optimize for our goals. Those goals are themselves implicit in our choice of ethical standards. My ethical system assigns the highest weights to human health and happiness. That also takes into account climate change, because I temporally discount large adverse climate events from the future and consider their effect on our progeny. I don't disregard animal life, I just place human life at the top of my ethical pyramid. If you value human and rodent life equally, and therefore human and rodent suffering equally, then I believe your ethical standards are as arbitrary as mine. You just have a different optimization function, and it is at odds, for better or worse, with that of most of humanity. What we can be most certain of is, generally, the revealed ethical system of most cultures, as manifested by their customs and laws (excluding the myriad effects of autocratic regimes and the cultural stunting that they entail). We can also be sure of our physical location, which determines the cultural mileu and ethical standards which are used to judge our actions. Furthermore, through empirical studies, we can measure the alignment of ethical systems to their goals and adjust course. We cannot, however, find an objective ethical system. It does not exist. We should not be bothered by that any more than we're bothered by the lack of a magic genie lamp or Velveeta volcano. All of that is to say, your equation of: cost of mouse suffering > widespread benefits of resulting drugs, is simply a preference. It can be restated as "I and a few others who share my views prefer that the lab mice not suffer, even if the result helps millions of humans." Even if you actually believe that the mouse testing is only wrong because it is in pursuit of something ostensibly cosmetic, or, as you stated, because we have made life more difficult for ourselves through over-abstraction and animals shouldn't suffer the consequences, your ethical standards are not any less arbitrary.