46 ms·
> Start with mice/rats. Move up to rabbits/pigs/dogs, then on to monkeys. Why not move on to humans afterward? If it's okay to perform unethical experiments a
by nilved 12y ago
> Start with mice/rats. Move up to rabbits/pigs/dogs, then on to monkeys.
Why not move on to humans afterward? If it's okay to perform unethical experiments as a means to an end, then why not perform them on humans for the maximum benefit? Unit 731's experiments provided agreeably valuable evidence, demonstrating the value in human experimentation; and it's hotly debated that many tests on animals are applicable to humans to begin with, demonstrating the overstated value of animal experimentation. So if it's true that knowledge trumps morality, we're not taking advantage of that fact.
- nospecinterests 12y agoWhere in this article did it state that the experiment was unethical? Only 2 people objected over what was essentially 2 different committees (with different people on those committees). Both committees approved two different, yet closely similar, plans. The person they quoted, who objected on the similar plan 2 years ago, seemed to object based on nothing but his feelings. In the article he stated, “We’re killing baby monkeys.” That is not anything near a reasoned, logical, scientifically backed statement on why their plan was unethical. Would it have been ethical if they proceeded with their plan, let it run its course for the year, then let the monkeys live until their natural deaths?
- nilved 12y agoSorry, I thought it was implied. Like an article about baby eating or something. If your argument is that you're a nihilist and don't value life (be it baby monkey or human) then that's something I can reason with, but if you're saying it's ethical to kill baby monkeys and not humans, re-read my post.