4 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.

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.