humans are so repulsive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wUx4BBrukg
150,000 beagles never let our of cages for animal testing in usa alone- chosen for their naturally docile nature

Reply 1

TorpidPhil

19

Because testing on humans would be so much more ethical I guess?

Reply 2

hdindak

OP

11

Original post by TorpidPhil

Because testing on humans would be so much more ethical I guess?

yep

Reply 3

Aph

22

Original post by TorpidPhil

Because testing on humans would be so much more ethical I guess?

well at least we could give humans the choice to volunteer

Reply 4

HandmadeTurnip

17

Original post by TorpidPhil

Because testing on humans would be so much more ethical I guess?

How is that relevant?

Reply 5

Novascope

17

Try to do something about it?

I'm not saying I agree with it, far from it. But I just find it a tad bit silly when people complain about things and get upset but don't actually make an effort to stop these terrible things.

Reply 6

Octohedral

16

Original post by HandmadeTurnip

How is that relevant?

Because if drugs / surgical methods / advances in scientific knowledge etc are not tested on animals then either humans die from not taking the drugs or they die from not having the drugs / other scientific knowledge. The argument is that animal testing is the lesser of two evils, which is very relevant.

I don't know what lab these animals came from, so I can't say if it was justifiable research, but it is definitely worth thinking about.

Reply 7

BitWindy

12

Original post by Novascope

Try to do something about it?

I'm not saying I agree with it, far from it. But I just find it a tad bit silly when people complain about things and get upset but don't actually make an effort to stop these terrible things.

What makes you assume that OP is doing nothing about it?

One could even interpret this thread as "doing something" by raising awareness.

Reply 8

Novascope

17

Original post by BitWindy

What makes you assume that OP is doing nothing about it?

One could even interpret this thread as "doing something" by raising awareness.

Well if I was so disgusted by what's going on to label a thread "humans are so repulsive", and was actually doing something about it, maybe I'd post a link to a blog or website I have showing how I'm fighting a cause or something? I'm not annoyed or trying to start something, I'd just like to see something as well :smile:

Yeah you could say this thread is raising awareness, but it's not a particularly great way of doing so.

Reply 9

Octohedral

16

Original post by Novascope

Try to do something about it?

I'm not saying I agree with it, far from it. But I just find it a tad bit silly when people complain about things and get upset but don't actually make an effort to stop these terrible things.

I see your point, but I disagree a little.

In an ideal world, everyone would be an activist for everything they disagree with. However, that will never happen. Meanwhile we shouldn't criticise people for bringing the point up - it would be far worse for these things to go ignored. Saying something is one step up from saying nothing.

Of course, making a life out of being a champagne socialist / sofa sitting, bacon eating pigs' rights campaigner is not very admirable, but I don't think not doing anything means you shouldn't say anything - on the contrary, it's spreading of knowledge that often gets large campaigns going.

Reply 10

HandmadeTurnip

17

Original post by Octohedral

Because if drugs / surgical methods / advances in scientific knowledge etc are not tested on animals then either humans die from not taking the drugs or they die from not having the drugs / other scientific knowledge. The argument is that animal testing is the lesser of two evils, which is very relevant.

I don't know what lab these animals came from, so I can't say if it was justifiable research, but it is definitely worth thinking about.

I agree that that's a reasonable argument to make, but my point was that something being the lesser of two evils does not make it any less evil when considered independently. Personally, I would dispute the view that testing on animals is inherently less cruel than testing on humans, but that's a different matter.

Reply 11

TorpidPhil

19

Original post by Aph

well at least we could give humans the choice to volunteer

And how much would you have to pay them? That dead money could be far better spent elsewhere on other research that saves lives.

If you didn't pay them a significant amount then you wouldn't have enough test subjects.

Animal testing saves human lives.

Reply 12

TorpidPhil

19

Original post by HandmadeTurnip

I agree that that's a reasonable argument to make, but my point was that something being the lesser of two evils does not make it any less evil when considered independently. Personally, I would dispute the view that testing on animals is inherently less cruel than testing on humans, but that's a different matter.

How is it evil?

If I say that I will kill two groups of people if you do nothing (and somehow let's assume you know that this is certain to happen) and then give you two controllers one detonating a bomb that will kill 2 people and one detonating a bomb that will kill 2000. Would it be immoral for you to detonate the one killing 2 people? Is that a lesser "evil"? No. It isn't an evil at all. It's a good outcome given the situation and your motivation was good. Are there better conceivable outcomes possible? Well, holistically yes, but not in that specific situation.

The fact of the matter is that humans succumb to disease, illness, suffering and death. So do animals. Humans though have more moral value as they feel more pain both physiologically and psychologically. Humans have hopes, dreams and desires that are crushed when they suffer. One human suffering hurts dozens of people around them who witness it. Humans dwell on past suffering for years to come and not only those who suffered but those who witnessed suffering too.

We don't have a choice. Either we allow suffering to animals or we allow it to humans. Because of all of the above it would be immoral to allow it to humans over animals. The only moral thing to do is to prevent human suffering while unfortunately conceding animal suffering. Obviously if there was a way to prevent both we would do it but there is not, hence why it's like the initial scenario, we have to make a choice. Making a choice is not immoral though...

Reply 13

Aph

22

Original post by TorpidPhil

And how much would you have to pay them? That dead money could be far better spent elsewhere on other research that saves lives.

If you didn't pay them a significant amount then you wouldn't have enough test subjects.

Animal testing saves human lives.

Why are humans more Importent? We are over populated. A good war or two would do us good, but this would work just as well.

Reply 14

HandmadeTurnip

17

Original post by TorpidPhil

How is it evil?

If I say that I will kill two groups of people if you do nothing (and somehow let's assume you know that this is certain to happen) and then give you two controllers one detonating a bomb that will kill 2 people and one detonating a bomb that will kill 2000. Would it be immoral for you to detonate the one killing 2 people? Is that a lesser "evil"? No. It isn't an evil at all. It's a good outcome given the situation and your motivation was good. Are there better conceivable outcomes possible? Well, holistically yes, but not in that specific situation.

The fact of the matter is that humans succumb to disease, illness, suffering and death. So do animals. Humans though have more moral value as they feel more pain both physiologically and psychologically. Humans have hopes, dreams and desires that are crushed when they suffer. One human suffering hurts dozens of people around them who witness it. Humans dwell on past suffering for years to come and not only those who suffered but those who witnessed suffering too.

We don't have a choice. Either we allow suffering to animals or we allow it to humans. Because of all of the above it would be immoral to allow it to humans over animals. The only moral thing to do is to prevent human suffering while unfortunately conceding animal suffering. Obviously if there was a way to prevent both we would do it but there is not, hence why it's like the initial scenario, we have to make a choice. Making a choice is not immoral though...

I was only using the word 'evil' in response to Octohedral's use of the term 'the lesser of two evils'. I don't think animal testing as a whole is inherently evil as like you said, some of it has been of vital help to modern medicine, although I do think certain practices can be labelled as such.

The two bombs argument is a poor analogy, it's too simplistic a situation to compare to something as complex as this. You also can't compare something that actively and directly causes suffering, like a bomb, to something that passively and indirectly causes suffering, like the failure to develop a certain medicine.

Where is the evidence that animals feel less pain than humans, either physiologically or psychologically? The biological system that allows nociception in humans is found in most other animals and while it's more difficult to study, most scientists agree that animals respond to pain in much the same way as humans. There is also no evidence that pain does not have a psychological effect on animals similar to that on humans. Again, it's much harder to study this sort of thing in animals due to them not being able to communicate their feelings like humans can.

As for your last paragraph, maybe it's true that there our only choices are to either condemn the human race to suffering or allow animals to suffer in our stead. Even if that is the case, it doesn't mean we shouldn't make every effort to seek out alternatives to animal testing and try to minimise the suffering of those animals involved in it. In the particular example raised by the OP, why were these dogs forced to live their entire lives in a cage? Was it an unavoidable part of the testing they were involved in? I might be wrong but I expect it had more to do with apathy, laziness and saving money.

Reply 15

Dilmurod Dilmu

10

No, humans who believe humans to be repulsive, are the repulsive ones.

Reply 16

aoxa

11

Animal testing is horrid, yes, but there's not many other options open to us that yield the same results and are as reliable as animal testing.

I do believe that animal testing should be made illegal for all purposes other than medicine though.

Reply 17

zKlown

19

Original post by hdindak

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wUx4BBrukg
150,000 beagles never let our of cages for animal testing in usa alone- chosen for their naturally docile nature