Turn on thread page Beta

Air France transporting live animals for vivisection watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Recently it has come to light that Air France are a major player in the vivisection(or animal testing) industry.
    There are two sides to every-story, although I know personally where I stand, and those of you who have seen my posts on animal related content on this forum should easily be able to guess.

    Here is the website that drew my attention to the issue:

    http://www.antivivisection.info/airfrance/letter.html

    Here is Air France's corporate statement on the issue:
    http://corporate.airfrance.com/en/pr...CMD_noBeUser=1

    So, potential debate topics:

    Are Air France justified in only looking at the (potential) interests of whole species of animals, and using that as either an excuse of justification for causing vast levels of suffering to individual animals?

    Are the levels of suffering that Air France causes to animals who are to be tested on justified or excusable? Or ought they adhere to standards above that of the law?

    Are the death rates of animals directly from transport too high?
    And is 60 hours of transport (in the context of how Air France treats the animals as they are being transported/held for transport) too much? Would it be justifiable, or partially justifiable if the time was decreased or the treatment less cruel?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not really sure where I stand on animal testing, it's a multi-layered debate.
    I am against animal cruelty, without a doubt. As for this, well this and actions like it should be monitered very closely by watchdogs and the authorities to make sure the animals are treated well, more than well in fact.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Oh those poor monkeys...

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    How do they sleep at night?

    I'm not really sure where I stand on animal testing, it's a multi-layered debate.
    One would guess comfortable on a throne of money.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    One would guess comfortable on a throne of money.
    Or on a bed of fur.
    Read my edited post, It's a slightly more serious and topical answer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Or on a bed of fur.
    Read my edited post, It's a slightly more serious and topical answer
    Yeah I see where you're coming from, but for the most part I think we should be researching alternatives rather than re-enforcing speciesist attitudes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Yeah I see where you're coming from, but for the most part I think we should be researching alternatives rather than re-enforcing speciesist attitudes.
    I see your point, however often the argument used in favour (and it's the only one I am aware of) is that it is better to do it on animals rather than humans. However I don't entirely agree so brace yourself,I actually agree with you. I wasn't aware speciesist was a word but I get what if means and to some extent I agree.
    It actually reminds me of this:

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I see your point, however often the argument used in favour (and it's the only one I am aware of) is that it is better to do it on animals rather than humans. However I don't entirely agree so brace yourself,I actually agree with you. I wasn't aware speciesist was a word but I get what if means and to some extent I agree.
    It actually reminds me of this:

    Speciesism is essentially (there are a few forms of it conceptually I think, but this should help you understand all of the ones you may come across) treating the division of human animals and non-human animals as relevant in itself in decision making arbitrarily.

    For example, to speak of universal human rights, because the marginal cases are human, where as those on par with them on an intellectual bass, or the basis of suffering etc. are not afforded rights is a speciesist view.

    To argue that humans are better than non-humans, merely because humans are human, and it is the species divide that is important, would be speciesist.
    Instead to coherently argue on that topic one would need to argue what it is they see in every human that they see no-where else, what property, ability, sets of abilities etc. humans have that are both universal and exclusive to humans that set humans apart.
    However by arguing like that we find two things happen, that we may have to exclude some humans, usually the marginal cases, and we may have to include some non-human animals.

    By the way if you're interested, there's a bit of a ruck-ass going on on Air France and Air France UK's facebook pages.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Humans aren't better than the rock that lies on the ground, the water that flows in the river or the rabbit that get tested, but there's a deep sympathy for human suffering whereas animals are fine hence we created these 'universal human rights' which aren't even universal but enforced just so that we are safe from suffering because of our sympathy (due to mirror neurones).

    But then again since there is no such thing as morality why not test it on animals if it is favourable to humans as equally as there would be no 'ethical' conflict if aliens tested their products on us.

    It's all relative
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stratos)
    Humans aren't better than the rock that lies on the ground, the water that flows in the river or the rabbit that get tested, but there's a deep sympathy for human suffering whereas animals are fine hence we created these 'universal human rights' which aren't even universal but enforced just so that we are safe from suffering because of our sympathy (due to mirror neurones).

    But then again since there is no such thing as morality why not test it on animals if it is favourable to humans as equally as there would be no 'ethical' conflict if aliens tested their products on us.

    It's all relative
    Of course you realise that the bold bit is firstly highly contentious and secondly, not something most people (myself included) will agree with.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Of course you realise that the bold bit is firstly highly contentious and secondly, not something most people (myself included) will agree with.
    I know it is contentious but I was somehow deeply hoping people would do their research/philosophizing themselves but that's sadly not the case.

    However your second point is one I have to disagree on 'most people does not imply a closer status to truth'
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Why don't people who are opposed to testing on animals offer themselves for tests instead? It would be much better to test drugs intended for humans on humans.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stratos)
    I know it is contentious but I was somehow deeply hoping people would do their research/philosophizing themselves but that's sadly not the case.

    However your second point is one I have to disagree on 'most people does not imply a closer status to truth'
    Are you trying to imply that I don't do my own research or philosophise?


    (Original post by Maker)
    Why don't people who are opposed to testing on animals offer themselves for tests instead? It would be much better to test drugs intended for humans on humans.
    Are you trolling?
    I don't want to force animals to be tested upon.
    I also don't want to be tested upon (at least for the moment).
    How are those two points related in the manner you're suggesting?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 27, 2011
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.