3 ms·
The problem with consent is it can easily be pressured. The only people that will consent to being tested on are people that are really desperate. I mean by tha
by tsol 4y ago
The problem with consent is it can easily be pressured. The only people that will consent to being tested on are people that are really desperate. I mean by that logic instead of testing on monkeys, we should test on hungry third world children. They'd surely consent to keep for starving to death. And because it's consensual, we're much more moral than if we tested them on monkeys. What a moral paradise!
- goldenkey 4y agoBy consent I meant, without duress, which I thought was pretty clear. We can quibble about what represents "true" consent but that's aside the point since it is clear that imprisoning and torturing animals is nonconsensual, not in any grey area. In the theory of socialism, consenting to working is illegitimate since the alternative is homelessness. Do you have any actual arguments or just hypothetical slippery slopes? https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Definition https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition
- tsol 4y agoThat's not a slippery slope. I argued that by your logic testing on desperate 3rd workers is more moral than testing on animals.
- goldenkey 4y agoThat's not really an argument against me, it's one against capitalism, since consent of certain actions is almost always under duress in a capitalistic society. Your argument is more for socialism, and I would agree with you.