3 ms·

I think this is a weak argument, because you could just as well use it to argue for conducting these experiments on humans: Humans suffer horrible lives natura

I think this is a weak argument, because you could just as well use it to argue for conducting these experiments on humans: Humans suffer horrible lives naturally too, and on a much more massive scale. If you're really against human suffering and dying then a far bigger problem is the existence of humans with peak populations, unreliable food supplies, murderers, fights and disease. Stopping research on humans is like trying to stop global warming by driving slower. Feels like you're making a difference but you're not.

XorNot 11y ago
This is not the slamdunk you think it is. If you could ensure the human population lived to exactly 70 years old and didn't suffer during that time, there is a very fair argument it would be a moral imperative to implement this social order since it would be a massive improvement over the current state of world affairs. Scale down that number to find where you think the line is.
- janxgeist 11y ago
  I'm not sure I understand you correctly: are you saying that animal experiments would be ethical if they removed all suffering for humans?
afarrell 11y ago
Yes, we devote X resources from stopping the suffering of humans at the expense of other humans. We currently only spend Y on stopping the suffering of humans from other causes and Y is not massively greater than X. However, the reasons for that are mostly due to the fact that spending on X also works to preserve the power structures (various government) that we use to direct money toward Y.
Lorento 11y ago
You certainly could. If the naturally suffering humans are in the same country as the experiments, then they probably should be given priority. As long as they can actually be helped as easily as ending human experiments. If they're in a different country then the people of each country will think their own population is more deserving than the other so it'll be unfairly skewed, as it currently is.

XorNot 11y ago

This is not the slamdunk you think it is. If you could ensure the human population lived to exactly 70 years old and didn't suffer during that time, there is a very fair argument it would be a moral imperative to implement this social order since it would be a massive improvement over the current state of world affairs. Scale down that number to find where you think the line is.

janxgeist 11y ago
I'm not sure I understand you correctly: are you saying that animal experiments would be ethical if they removed all suffering for humans?

afarrell 11y ago

Yes, we devote X resources from stopping the suffering of humans at the expense of other humans. We currently only spend Y on stopping the suffering of humans from other causes and Y is not massively greater than X. However, the reasons for that are mostly due to the fact that spending on X also works to preserve the power structures (various government) that we use to direct money toward Y.

Lorento 11y ago

You certainly could. If the naturally suffering humans are in the same country as the experiments, then they probably should be given priority. As long as they can actually be helped as easily as ending human experiments. If they're in a different country then the people of each country will think their own population is more deserving than the other so it'll be unfairly skewed, as it currently is.