Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Can anyone here justify the separate ethic codes applied to human vs animal research, where it may be ok to test on animals but not on humans?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think there'll ever be a good justification, but the first attempt that came to mind was animals are less significant and important than humans, therefore their lives are less sacred and can be toyed with. By the way, this is not my personal view, just the first one I thought of that could be an argument.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Because informed consent, the key ethical requirement for human research, is not possible with animals. Also, people have been researched on in the same way as animals are repeatedly.
    There is a need for research, including animal research, but it has to be valid, and avoid unnecessary suffering. It needs to do something needed.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Go volunteer to get tested on then.
    ‘Be the change you want to see in the world’
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    It's the compromise between those who are against animal research and those who are for human research.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Well we already eat animals, testing on them isn't much different
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zeldor711)
    Well we already eat animals, testing on them isn't much different
    So if it is ethically fine to eat animals, what makes it not ok to eat humans?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    So if it is ethnically fine to eat animals, what makes it not ok to eat humans?
    Because we have morals. Members of the human specie value the life of our own more highly than the lives of other animals.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    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.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    So if it is ethnically fine to eat animals, what makes it not ok to eat humans?
    Because cannibalism is very harmful and causes problems that eating animals does not cause.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zeldor711)
    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?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    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
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I thought testing on humans is the third phase.

    I believe they first test on Human cells to see whether the drug is effective in the first place.

    Then they test on animals to see whether the drug is safe.

    Afterwards they test on human voluteers to find out how the drug effects other parts of the body and to see how the body react to long term use of the drug.

    Although, I think that some companies don't run human trials long enough to see the long term health effects of a drug,
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    It's because humans prioritise of the survival of out species foremost everything else comes next tbh
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    ethnically fine
    Lol
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    loooooooooooooooooool
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The Nazis tried it, obviously didn't go down too well.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    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?
    Think more sentience than intelligence. It's the same exact argument actually, but an important distinction.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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