5 ms·
We shouldn't do it to rats either. The thing is, your view of this is too anthropocentric. Saying this: "I worry about people passionately drawing very sharp,
by ss108 4y ago
We shouldn't do it to rats either.
The thing is, your view of this is too anthropocentric. Saying this:
"I worry about people passionately drawing very sharp, red, punitive moral lines on things that are pretty subjective and that different people will have different opinions on. We're going to be in a bad place if we all draw slightly different lines on various issues, then condemn and work to punish each other for crossing our lines."
...doesn't take into consideration the experiences of monkeys and other animals.
So you're going to have to morally justify why we shouldn't care about them.
The argument you are making sounds reasonable if applied to, e.g., cancel culture or something, but it's rather willfully oblivious and glib in this context, IMO.
"Can we all find something better to do with our lives than try to punish each other for not toeing the exact line of our individual moral opinions?"
Wouldn't by definition many moral opinions necessitate that one try to get them enforced in some way? You're kind of just downplaying morality overall, arguably.
Again, I'd be sympathetic to what you're saying in a lot of contexts, either where humans are the only creatures involved or the human actions simply don't directly infringe on anyone else. So, abortion, cancel-culture, gay marriage, etc. This way of thinking could be usefully applied to a lot of hot-button issues where the conduct really doesn't actually harm anyone else, human or otherwise. But if it comes to animal experimentation, genocide (see China), various forms of oppression and discrimination within societies (whether racial or like caste-based, whatever), etc., people are going to become indignant, and if they didn't, we'd all just be amoral and compassion-less in a very dystopian way.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago>Wouldn't by definition many moral opinions necessitate that one try to get them enforced in some way? You're kind of just downplaying morality overall, arguably. No? There are a vast array of moral opinions that can govern your actions but not others. That is to say, you don't have always have moral responsibility for the actions of others. Similarly, there's a wide array of opinions on what actions are appropriate to curtail a moral behavior of others. I would agree with the parent post that hard lines governing others can be quite dangerous.
- ss108 4y ago"I would agree with the parent post that hard lines governing others can be quite dangerous." This could be logically extended to support the notion we shouldn't have laws or something.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoProbably some laws, but not most. A lot of laws and the most important ones are about preventing people from hurting others or damaging their property. Those aren't about moralizing private actions that don't impact anyone else.
- civilized 4y agoSo, my argument sounds good re: cancel culture but not re: animal experimentation? Does that mean people who say horrible racist things are not moral monsters deserving of punishment, but a guy who does medical experiments on rats is? I respect your opinion (which may not be exactly what I suggested above), but can't you see how easily someone else could think very differently? How far should we go to enforce our exact individual moral opinions that so many other humans don't share? It's a hard question that deserves input from thought and not just moral emotions. That's all I want to point out.
- ss108 4y agoSaying things doesn't inflict a harm of the same nature as the experiments. The line-drawing is not so impossible or purely subjective that it cannot or should not be undertaken.
- civilized 4y agoI'm curious where you stand on abortion?
- ss108 4y agoKind of moderate. Seems like a thornier moral issue to me than the kind of animal experimentation at issue. I can see how people can maintain hardline stances on abortion. That's their prerogative. I don't think there would necessarily be anything categorically impermissible about an abortion ban; I would just disagree with such a ban substantively. It's not where I would draw the line. But I don't think it's out of the question or harmful that someone would want to draw the line there. I think this position is generally consistent with the tack I take above, though open to being wrong--in which case, I would sooner adjust my views on abortion than on animal experimentation haha
- civilized 4y agoIt's hard to moralize in someone else's shoes, but I tend to think that consistency would mean taking a hard line on both. A fetus past the first trimester seems like it may well be about as sentient as most non-human animals, and definitely by the end of the second trimester. And I'm not persuaded by that old "violinist" argument. In fact I find it morally repulsive. If you cause another sentient being to come into existence, even unintentionally, you can't just deny responsibility and feel free to terminate their life, as if a random person were strapped to you against your will. It's not a remotely comparable situation. Personally I am OK with abortion and animal experimentation, but I think they stand and fall together, based on how far you extend out your circle of concern to fellow sentient beings.