4 ms·

> I don't see an ethical problem That "I" is the key. Different people have different standards. Mengele had no qualms about using experiments on humans as lon

by srean 6y ago

> I don't see an ethical problem That "I" is the key. Different people have different standards. Mengele had no qualms about using experiments on humans as long as they were Jewish. Many find that troubling, some not at all and find it quite justified when there are under-studied diseases that threaten a superior race. The crux of your argument is that humans are a superior species and entitled to such luxuries because it can appropriate them. https://www.history.com/news/nazi-twin-experiments-mengele-eugenics https://www.history.com/news/nazi-twin-experiments-mengele-e... Would some choose to die/suffer rather than benefit from such experiments -- yes absolutely. Would some choose to resign than layoff reports for cost cutting -- yes absolutely. Would some grab tax funded benefits even when they have protested boisterously against such schemes all their life -- yes absolutely.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> The crux of your argument is that humans are a superior species Correct. It would be absurd to treat all species as having equivalent moral standing. Under that belief, it would be morally troublesome to take steps to stop mice eating your winter rations, or to rescue a person from a burning building in preference over two pets. > Would some choose to die/suffer rather than benefit from such experiments -- yes absolutely. Some might even prefer that their child die rather than receive treatment developed with animal testing. Reasonable people, however, find this abhorrent. It's right that in the UK, a parent does not have an absolute right to make this sort of mistake. [0] Nothing is gained by bringing Nazi ideology into the discussion, and I don't appreciate the attempt to compare my position (the mainstream one) to theirs. That's no way to have a discussion. You've not really expressed a position of your own here, I take it you disagree with mine? [0] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/
- srean 6y ago
  I dont think I entirely disagree with your position. I think we should strive to avoid animal suffering much more than we do. Complete stop of animal testing, no I dont think that is wise. Things are getting better though, for example experiments now need to be vetted by ethics committee (I havent heard them say no though, except for one case where they wanted to experiment on primates) What worries me is the desensitization that happens when one does animal testing. I have had grad-students in my academic year do entirely avoidable stuff to lab animals for giggles and demonstrations of the power that they can. I doubt these are as one offs or outliers as they are made out to be. My other point is that positions will become clearer (to themselves) if those who oppose are not allowed to benefit from the findings unless they concede the point that some animal testing has benefits, how morally uncomfortable they might be. Forget animal testing, I have a feeling many will choose not to eat meat were they to slaughter animals themselves. [Still waiting for the launch of lab grown meat] I get Godwin's law, but one should not shy away from history when recalling it demonstrates a real point. I think Mengele anecdote was fair use. It demonstrates that people have different standards and different definitions about who are more entitled than others. It is better to use actual examples rather than hypothetical ones to bring an issue into focus rather than mask it using euphemisms and abstractions. Particularly so because it was a popular position among many at that time, not a fringe position. Its tempting to invoke democracy to draw the line (and frankly I dont see what could be a better alternative). Mengele example is important, because I think we know now where the line would have been drawn in case of a popular vote. > It would be absurd to treat all species as having equivalent moral standing. Why wouldnt it be equally absurd to treat all humans as having equivalent moral standing. Some would argue that that too is equally absurd. In fact that had been the mainstream historical position of much of humankind. I guess its here that things get personal. I have had it said to me in the US that a suffering of an Indian is dollar for dollar worth less than the suffering of an American. Even if many dont say it aloud I will not be surprised if many believe that. The point is, in the future we may look at animal testing that goes on now, the same way we look at Mengele now. We shouldnt stop animal testing entirely but we should eliminate as much as we can and when it cannot be avoided do those with some regret, gratitude and perhaps a little guilt to keep us watchful about excesses. I think this is 1024core's position as well.
- krageon 6y ago
  > moral standing Arguments coming from moral anything (moral obligation, moral standing, etc) are generally founded on some sort of abrahamic value system. Nothing wrong with that, but discussing it from that point of view has already been done (note that there is a post in this chain that says the reasoning for animal testing being okay is made from the supposition that humans are superior) and is therefore not very interesting. You can of course invent fake ethical situations until the sun turns into a red giant, but they would still not be germane because different situations deserve a different treatment. The fact that you are transitioning into personal attacks three sentences into your post also really doesn't do what you are saying any favors. Perhaps you find torturing animals because it might save children perfectly acceptable and reasonable and other people find it monstrous and wrong. You might imagine those same people find their own positions to be reasonable.
skohan 6y ago
I think there is a very valid philosophical debate around the ethics of animal testing. My first time traveling in the developing world one of the things which struck me is how many sick and hungry dogs I saw on the streets. My initial reaction was to take judgement: how could the people here let this happen to these innocent creatures? But as I spent more time there, I came to realize that there was so much human suffering there that spending my compassion on an animal almost felt like a luxury. I'm not saying I have the answer to this question, it's only an anecdote.
- srean 6y ago
  My experience in some of the third world has been that of kindness towards the strays. That people stuck in hard times with a hard life still feed them, have drinking water out for them are acts of kindness. In fact I gauge a city's heart by the treatment of the strays.
  - skohan 6y ago
    Judging a city's heart is a nice notion, but judging the material outcomes might be a bit more constructive
    - srean 6y ago
      Agreed. Sometimes it takes a keen eye though. Presence of strays need not mean they are not look after by the locals (in fairness, neither does it imply the complement)
- 1024core 6y ago
  > how could the people here let this happen to these innocent creatures? The alternative, which is what is done in the US (and most "developed" countries, I imagine) is to kill them all right away.
bobthechef 6y ago
> Different people have different standards. This is about as weaselly of a response as you could have given. That different people have different standards is irrelevant. What matters is the truth of the matter. Notice that I didn't say the truth is always known, easy to know, or even knowable, but there's a stark difference between the idea that there is a truth of a matter and "it all depends on whom you ask", i.e., there's no fact of the matter, just "different standards". The Nazi comparison is just poisoning the well (with the tacit presumption that Nazi experiments are evil). I won't dwell on it. Pointing out assumptions, even when correct (I'm not saying you've properly identified them, only even if you have), does little to advance any argument if its not followed up with some effort to show those assumptions are false or dubious. The question here is about what is morally permissible in human-animal relations. Rights enter the picture as well. So one could most certainly argue, as Oderberg[0] has, that we are not permitted to be cruel to animals, but that animals nonetheless do not have rights given the preconditions he identifies for rights. Indeed, pre-Cartesian thought is in line with this thinking (i.e., that cruelty toward animals is immoral; note that it was Descartes who reduced animals to unconscious, dumb meat machines). Apart from that, there is something absurd about the attempt to cast the use of animals as some dreadfully immoral act without having made humans special in the first place. Nature is full of exploitation that doesn't seem to bother those campaigning for animal rights. The praying mantis that consumes prey alive. The crocodile that rips prey apart in a terrifying display of beastly power. The emerald cockroach wasp that uses another animal as a host for its young. Primates can also be quite nasty, tearing the limbs off living, defenseless young members of their own species. Are any of these animals being immoral, at least in those cases where the gruesome action in question is not natural to their survival? If you answer "no", you must give an account of why humans are special. I submit that what makes us different in this respect is that first, we have the capacity to understand what we're going and its immorality, and second, we have the capacity to choose otherwise. [0] https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUiecnJuOWpJSzFOaDg/edit https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUiecnJuOWpJSzFOaDg/...
- srean 6y ago
  > The question here is about what is morally permissible in human-animal relations. The point is that the answer depends on whom you ask when you ask. Blanket discouragement of historically relevant example, such as Mengele is just censorship to make things look rosy. Are you disputing the fact that human experiments were considered eminently permissible by a large population of people ? If not, then how is such a fact not germane to the discussion. > Nature is full of exploitation that doesn't seem to bother those campaigning for animal rights. Judge, why do you want to put me in prison, so many others murder too. > I submit that what makes us different in this respect is that first, we have the capacity to understand what we're going and its immorality, and second, we have the capacity to choose otherwise. Exactly.

by srean 6y ago

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

> The crux of your argument is that humans are a superior species Correct. It would be absurd to treat all species as having equivalent moral standing. Under that belief, it would be morally troublesome to take steps to stop mice eating your winter rations, or to rescue a person from a burning building in preference over two pets. > Would some choose to die/suffer rather than benefit from such experiments -- yes absolutely. Some might even prefer that their child die rather than receive treatment developed with animal testing. Reasonable people, however, find this abhorrent. It's right that in the UK, a parent does not have an absolute right to make this sort of mistake. [0] Nothing is gained by bringing Nazi ideology into the discussion, and I don't appreciate the attempt to compare my position (the mainstream one) to theirs. That's no way to have a discussion. You've not really expressed a position of your own here, I take it you disagree with mine? [0] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/

srean 6y ago
I dont think I entirely disagree with your position. I think we should strive to avoid animal suffering much more than we do. Complete stop of animal testing, no I dont think that is wise. Things are getting better though, for example experiments now need to be vetted by ethics committee (I havent heard them say no though, except for one case where they wanted to experiment on primates) What worries me is the desensitization that happens when one does animal testing. I have had grad-students in my academic year do entirely avoidable stuff to lab animals for giggles and demonstrations of the power that they can. I doubt these are as one offs or outliers as they are made out to be. My other point is that positions will become clearer (to themselves) if those who oppose are not allowed to benefit from the findings unless they concede the point that some animal testing has benefits, how morally uncomfortable they might be. Forget animal testing, I have a feeling many will choose not to eat meat were they to slaughter animals themselves. [Still waiting for the launch of lab grown meat] I get Godwin's law, but one should not shy away from history when recalling it demonstrates a real point. I think Mengele anecdote was fair use. It demonstrates that people have different standards and different definitions about who are more entitled than others. It is better to use actual examples rather than hypothetical ones to bring an issue into focus rather than mask it using euphemisms and abstractions. Particularly so because it was a popular position among many at that time, not a fringe position. Its tempting to invoke democracy to draw the line (and frankly I dont see what could be a better alternative). Mengele example is important, because I think we know now where the line would have been drawn in case of a popular vote. > It would be absurd to treat all species as having equivalent moral standing. Why wouldnt it be equally absurd to treat all humans as having equivalent moral standing. Some would argue that that too is equally absurd. In fact that had been the mainstream historical position of much of humankind. I guess its here that things get personal. I have had it said to me in the US that a suffering of an Indian is dollar for dollar worth less than the suffering of an American. Even if many dont say it aloud I will not be surprised if many believe that. The point is, in the future we may look at animal testing that goes on now, the same way we look at Mengele now. We shouldnt stop animal testing entirely but we should eliminate as much as we can and when it cannot be avoided do those with some regret, gratitude and perhaps a little guilt to keep us watchful about excesses. I think this is 1024core's position as well.
krageon 6y ago
> moral standing Arguments coming from moral anything (moral obligation, moral standing, etc) are generally founded on some sort of abrahamic value system. Nothing wrong with that, but discussing it from that point of view has already been done (note that there is a post in this chain that says the reasoning for animal testing being okay is made from the supposition that humans are superior) and is therefore not very interesting. You can of course invent fake ethical situations until the sun turns into a red giant, but they would still not be germane because different situations deserve a different treatment. The fact that you are transitioning into personal attacks three sentences into your post also really doesn't do what you are saying any favors. Perhaps you find torturing animals because it might save children perfectly acceptable and reasonable and other people find it monstrous and wrong. You might imagine those same people find their own positions to be reasonable.

skohan 6y ago

I think there is a very valid philosophical debate around the ethics of animal testing. My first time traveling in the developing world one of the things which struck me is how many sick and hungry dogs I saw on the streets. My initial reaction was to take judgement: how could the people here let this happen to these innocent creatures? But as I spent more time there, I came to realize that there was so much human suffering there that spending my compassion on an animal almost felt like a luxury. I'm not saying I have the answer to this question, it's only an anecdote.

srean 6y ago
My experience in some of the third world has been that of kindness towards the strays. That people stuck in hard times with a hard life still feed them, have drinking water out for them are acts of kindness. In fact I gauge a city's heart by the treatment of the strays.
- skohan 6y ago
  Judging a city's heart is a nice notion, but judging the material outcomes might be a bit more constructive
  - srean 6y ago
    Agreed. Sometimes it takes a keen eye though. Presence of strays need not mean they are not look after by the locals (in fairness, neither does it imply the complement)
1024core 6y ago
> how could the people here let this happen to these innocent creatures? The alternative, which is what is done in the US (and most "developed" countries, I imagine) is to kill them all right away.

bobthechef 6y ago

> Different people have different standards. This is about as weaselly of a response as you could have given. That different people have different standards is irrelevant. What matters is the truth of the matter. Notice that I didn't say the truth is always known, easy to know, or even knowable, but there's a stark difference between the idea that there is a truth of a matter and "it all depends on whom you ask", i.e., there's no fact of the matter, just "different standards". The Nazi comparison is just poisoning the well (with the tacit presumption that Nazi experiments are evil). I won't dwell on it. Pointing out assumptions, even when correct (I'm not saying you've properly identified them, only even if you have), does little to advance any argument if its not followed up with some effort to show those assumptions are false or dubious. The question here is about what is morally permissible in human-animal relations. Rights enter the picture as well. So one could most certainly argue, as Oderberg[0] has, that we are not permitted to be cruel to animals, but that animals nonetheless do not have rights given the preconditions he identifies for rights. Indeed, pre-Cartesian thought is in line with this thinking (i.e., that cruelty toward animals is immoral; note that it was Descartes who reduced animals to unconscious, dumb meat machines). Apart from that, there is something absurd about the attempt to cast the use of animals as some dreadfully immoral act without having made humans special in the first place. Nature is full of exploitation that doesn't seem to bother those campaigning for animal rights. The praying mantis that consumes prey alive. The crocodile that rips prey apart in a terrifying display of beastly power. The emerald cockroach wasp that uses another animal as a host for its young. Primates can also be quite nasty, tearing the limbs off living, defenseless young members of their own species. Are any of these animals being immoral, at least in those cases where the gruesome action in question is not natural to their survival? If you answer "no", you must give an account of why humans are special. I submit that what makes us different in this respect is that first, we have the capacity to understand what we're going and its immorality, and second, we have the capacity to choose otherwise. [0] https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUiecnJuOWpJSzFOaDg/edit https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUiecnJuOWpJSzFOaDg/...

srean 6y ago
> The question here is about what is morally permissible in human-animal relations. The point is that the answer depends on whom you ask when you ask. Blanket discouragement of historically relevant example, such as Mengele is just censorship to make things look rosy. Are you disputing the fact that human experiments were considered eminently permissible by a large population of people ? If not, then how is such a fact not germane to the discussion. > Nature is full of exploitation that doesn't seem to bother those campaigning for animal rights. Judge, why do you want to put me in prison, so many others murder too. > I submit that what makes us different in this respect is that first, we have the capacity to understand what we're going and its immorality, and second, we have the capacity to choose otherwise. Exactly.