Why is it ok to test on animals but not on humans?

Well we already eat animals, testing on them isn't much different

So if it is ethnically fine to eat animals, what makes it not ok to eat humans?

So if it is ethnically fine to eat animals, what makes it not ok to eat humans?

So if it is ethnically fine to eat animals, what makes it not ok to eat humans?

Because eating animals furthers the survival of the species. Eating humans does the opposite.

If we forcibly interbred humans and ate their offspring the same way we do farm animals, eating humans would further the survival of the species - in fact, it would be even better at doing that than the current model we have that allows people a say in whether they have offspring. Why not do that?

You HAVE to test products on SOMETHING before making it commercially available. Here are the options:

1) Animals
2) ???

Human volunteers are for phase 2 trials when you know the stuff won't straight up MURDER people. As humans it's normal to view other human life as more important than other species' lives. That's a natural instinct. Plus of course, humans are the most intelligent creatures on Earth. More intelligence in an animal makes testing on them less humane. Testing on a dog is worse than testing on a rat I think. But of course, labs insist on using beagles for some reason.

I don't see how there could ever be an alternative to animal testing in some circumstances. Risking human life because you're upset about mice getting hurt is ****ing stupid.

ethnically fine

You HAVE to test products on SOMETHING before making it commercially available. Here are the options:

1) Animals
2) ???

Human volunteers are for phase 2 trials when you know the stuff won't straight up MURDER people. As humans it's normal to view other human life as more important than other species' lives. That's a natural instinct. Plus of course, humans are the most intelligent creatures on Earth. More intelligence in an animal makes testing on them less humane. Testing on a dog is worse than testing on a rat I think. But of course, labs insist on using beagles for some reason.

I don't see how there could ever be an alternative to animal testing in some circumstances. Risking human life because you're upset about mice getting hurt is ****ing stupid.

Why should intelligence play a role in whether you experiment on something?

"Equality of consideration is a prescription, not an assertion of fact: if the equality of the sexes were based only on the idea that men and women were equally intelligent, we would have to abandon the practice of equal consideration if this were later found to be false. But the moral idea of equality does not depend on matters of fact such as intelligence, physical strength, or moral capacity. Equality therefore cannot be grounded on the outcome of scientific investigations into the intelligence of nonhumans. All that matters is whether they can suffer."

If intelligence of an organism determined whether it is ethical to experiment on it, does that mean it is ethical to experiment on mentally-disabled people?