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

No one can really.

Eating is a different matter. Since every animal eats to survive, I don't think it's morally wrong to kill an animal. What is morally wrong is to deny it a fair chance at life or a fair fight, i.e Factory Farming. We are the only species to have become intelligent enough to accomplish such a feat and so we are also the ethical pioneers in this area.

I don't think it's wrong that native South American tribes hunt wild animals to feed their villages but factory farming is wrong in my opinion.

With regards to drug testing, an animal doesn't choose to be tested on. Since it may be subjected to pain, it could be regarded as a form of torture. So in my mind that is unethical and I think humans should be taking the burden on that front with paid volunteers.

Reply 21

Beckit

10

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

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?

Because eating your own species causes debilitating diseases.. . you have heard of mad cow disease haven't you? It was caused by cows eating cow brains, causing a proliferation of a brain eating pathogen which made it's way into the human food chain. This concentration and proliferation of disease is why cannibals tend to die both young and insane.

Reply 22

BlueEyes15

15

This isn't my opinion but people believe that it is the lesser of two evils

Reply 23

Retired_Messiah

21

I was going to say that if you think of any justification for eating animals but not eating other humans, you could probably apply whatever the answer to that question is to this issue. But I see that's already sort of come up so um... hm.

Drugs and all that tend to go through three phases of stuff:
1. Tested on some random ass human cells to see if it actually does the thing you want
2. Tested on some specially bred rats or something to make sure the drug doesn't make things explode and such like
3. Tested on humans once none-explosiveness has been established to see if there's any other weird side effects. Often does as a double blind with a placebo, so you can see if it's actually any better than doing literally nothing.

If you take out the animal part, you've got a much higher potential for killing humans than you would have if you'd checked what happens to animals first. So the question is whether you value human lives as much as animal lives. You could of course argue that the value of the two different things is equal, but the thing there is there's no reason why the value of both can't be 0. If you take the value of both to be nothing, then you may as well do the rats to keep the name of your drug company all fine and dandy. If you develop a drug and a bunch of worthless dudes die in testing it, RIP your reputation. Alternatively, murder some other worthless things and keep your funding and support so you can eventually develop stuff that actually works all nice.

I've literally made this up on the spot, in my own view I'm a little undecided on animal testing, but lean more toward doing animals for what are more or less selfish justifications.

Reply 24

gjd800

20

Someone's been reading some Peter Singer.

Reply 25

Kalalealu

5

Original post by zeldor711

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

beg to differ, we don't usually test on dead animals as much and definitely don't eat alive ones.

Reply 26

zeldor711

18

Original post by Kalalealu

beg to differ, we don't usually test on dead animals as much and definitely don't eat alive ones.

In my books testing on something is better than killing it.

Reply 27

Kalalealu

5

Original post by zeldor711

In my books testing on something is better than killing it.

Are you sure though, cause through testing you draw out their suffering over an indefinite period, whereas killing an animal is quick.

Reply 28

zeldor711

18

Original post by Kalalealu

Are you sure though, cause through testing you draw out their suffering over an indefinite period, whereas killing an animal is quick.

TBH lots of testing is preferable to death. Of course there will be some trials that cause relatively large amounts of pain over a long time but TBH I don't have any moral qualms about having a few mice suffer if it means that more humans get to live longer and better lives ("greater good").

Reply 29

Kalalealu

5

Original post by zeldor711

TBH lots of testing is preferable to death. Of course there will be some trials that cause relatively large amounts of pain over a long time but TBH I don't have any moral qualms about having a few mice suffer if it means that more humans get to live longer and better lives ("greater good" :wink:

.

Huh yeah but that’s entirely subjective, if you could ask the mouse who should be tested for the greater good there’d be a lot more human trials.

Reply 30

zeldor711

18

Original post by Kalalealu

Huh yeah but that’s entirely subjective, if you could ask the mouse who should be tested for the greater good there’d be a lot more human trials.

The mouse does not have the capacity to answer that question. Besides, as a human I have humanities best interests at heart.

Reply 31

plosigh

3

Original post by RockyDennis

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.

tbh it would be better to test on retards like you.

Reply 32

CTLeafez

22

Call me a mean person but a human's life and wellbeing will always take priority over an animals. The testing of animals is required in-order to reduce the potential harm it could cause to a human.

If a new drug were to seriously harm a lab rat for example, it could be euthanised, you can't do the same to a human test subject. By testing on animals, you are reducing the amount of suffering an organism has to go through to find out if the drug is safe or not.

Reply 33

plosigh

3

Original post by zeldor711

OK then, humans have morals built in to them that put them against harming other human beings due to generations of evolution hence why people believe murder is wrong

It took thousands of years for society to agree that killing any human is wrong. Wonder if in a few thousands years that will expand to animals. You might say no ****ing way but I am sure slave owners a few hundred years ago would never believe a society like the one today would ever happen.

Reply 34

eden3

19

Human lives are more valuable than animals' lives.

That's why.

Reply 35

plosigh

3

Original post by CTLevers

Call me a mean person but a human's life and wellbeing will always take priority over an animals. The testing of animals is required in-order to reduce the potential harm it could cause to a human.

If a new drug were to seriously harm a lab rat for example, it could be euthanised, you can't do the same to a human test subject. By testing on animals, you are reducing the amount of suffering an organism has to go through to find out if the drug is safe or not.

I like the idea of carrying out these experiments on child molesters better than a defenceless animal. No doubt that view will disgust a lot of people. People that are disgusted by my view disgust me so they can go **** themselves.

Reply 36

plosigh

3

Original post by eden3

Human lives are more valuable than animals' lives.

That's why.

Prove it. Or is that just you subjective opinion that you've been indoctrinated to believe from birth?

Reply 37

CTLeafez

22

Original post by plosigh

I like the idea of carrying out these experiments on child molesters better than a defenceless animal. No doubt that view will disgust a lot of people. People that are disgusted by my view disgust me so they can go **** themselves.

You may dislike this but even child molesters have human rights I'm afraid :tongue:

Yes, they are terrible human beings and should be punished severely, but forced medical experimentation doesn't make us much better than those European chaps 70 years ago who wore fancy uniforms designed by Hugo Boss...

Unlikely hypothetical but imagine the outcry if someone were unwilling tested on as they were convicted as a sex offender but then it came to light they were falsely convicted!

Reply 38

plodsew

1

Original post by CTLevers

You may dislike this but even child molesters have human rights I'm afraid :tongue:

Yes, they are terrible human beings and should be punished severely, but forced medical experimentation doesn't make us much better than those European chaps 70 years ago who wore fancy uniforms designed by Hugo Boss...

Unlikely hypothetical but imagine the outcry if someone were unwilling tested on as they were convicted as a sex offender but then it came to light they were falsely convicted!

Well they shouldn't have any rights at all. I don't buy this bs from society that every single human should have some rights at least no matter what they've done. A man who rapes and murders kids deserves to have more rights than a defenceless animal who hasn't harmed anybody? What a ****ing disgusting view to have.

Call me a nazi all you want idgaf its just the way I see things.