This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Do you agree or disagree with animal testing?

Scroll to see replies

curiouslyorange1989

jacketpotato

Yes, it is a burden of proof issue.
You said "the modern view of justice is that it is better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent suffer injustice!". If this isn't referring to the burden of proof, I don't know what is.

So what if we are superior in one aspect? You never explained why human dominance is relevant.
I can only assume you mentioned it to try and justify your assertion that people have rights and animals don't earlier in the topic. If so, then how can you justify giving the severely mentally disabled rights?
Moreover, is it generally correct that might makes right? I would suggest that the answer to this when applied to any mainstream political or social process is a firm NO. Why should it matter, then, when applied to animals?

lol true about the first bit missed that lol :biggrin:

It is not an assertion that we have rights and animals dont it is a Fact. i was merely justifying the reason behind the legal situation we currently enjoy. Currently it is merely enough to be a member of our species to enjoy rights, you dont have to qualify to as a "superior" human to gain them (which is as it should be). Animals are not human biologically so they dont get rights. i would argue the reason we have rights is because we as a species created them FOR our species using intellect and communication only applicable TO our species. the whole superiority aspect was merely one line of thought as to why we have rights and animals dont.

i dont quite follow the last part if you could clarify?

Reply 181

Galatea

Student of Entomology

Yes but how can a brain-dead baby ever have had any moral concept

I don't really understand this; your point here seems to be either a) humans are not set apart from animals by their moral faculty or b) the brain dead baby is not human. (Please correct me if your point was anything else.)

a) The fact remains that a moral faculty is still part of the human condition, and is something that sets people apart from animals. Morality is an entirely human phenomenon; it is exclusive to the human race, and is present in every normally functioning person.

b) however, as I explained earlier; being human is not something you qualify to be by having these abilities or capacities, there are obviously humans who lack them; a brain dead baby is still human (obviously) even if they have no concept of morals; they belong to the human race. (I can't believe I have to spell this out) A moral faculty is firstly something that develops from birth, and secondly is clearly a neurological phenomenon; a brain dead baby cannot therefore make moral choices - but of course there is the potential to do so within them, by virtue of being human - this is something no animal has.

Reply 182

Charlybob

Galatea

While I don't want to belittle animals either, to say we are no different is to belittle humans.

While in certain biological terms there are few differences; we are all merely warm blooded mammals, etc, etc, in psychological terms the profound differences in terms of our range of emotions, our ability to make moral decisions, our capacity for intellectual thought makes our differentiation from animals abundantly self evident. It doesn't need explaining - clearly the human race is set apart from any other in many respects.

No, it'd only be belittling if all forms of life had a value.

We're nothing special, we just over-complicate survival.

Reply 183

jacketpotato

curiouslyorange1989

'legal situation we currently enjoy'. Animals are provided legal protection and generally do have some rights under our legal system, skimpy and insufficient though these may be.

Interestingly enough, you pretty much contradict yourself by explaining that 'the whole superiority aspect was merely one line of thought as to why we have rights and animals dont'. This does not sit easily with a 'all humans get rights, only humans get right' argument. If rights rest on superiority ('only the winner gets rights') then how can you possibly justify giving weaker humans rights over stronger?
This leaves the question of a justification for a 'all humans, only humans' viewpoint open. The fact is, there are no convincing reasons to justify such an arbitrary distinction. It is not even something that can be justified as a matter of biology. Evolution is a gradual and ongoing process and does not have any arbitrary cut-off point. In nature there are no arbitrary cut-off points. This is why feeble attempts to justify such a solid and unmovable distinction based only on species is so unconvincing. Anything you can mention - love, compassion, teamwork, communication etc. can be found in the animal kingdom just as much as the humans: we are animals ourselves. I would be interested to hear your views on whether the pygmy human tribes of South America should enjoy rights.

Your attempts to justify such an arbitrary cut-off point give rise to their own problems. Your line of thought ('we have rights is because we as a species created them FOR our species using intellect and communication only applicable TO our species') would decline to give rights to those who did not think of the idea. Given that the concept of 'rights' was invented by white and sane men, by your argument one could easily deny rights to black men or those with mental illnesses.

The only justifiable reason for having rights (rights in the wide sense of the word, obviously) is sentience. We did not 'create' rights. Rights are a philosophical construct, that is an idea that governs how we treat others. They are not given in self-interest. Of course, humans may qualify for more rights than animals for all sorts of reasons. But to deny the most basic rights such as freedom from unnecessary suffering is completely arbitrary and unjustifiable: animals can feel pain just as much as humans, and merit consideration for this reason. This is the same reason that we give rights to the mentally disabled.
What you do in life affects other sentient beings. You should bear this mind when you make your life choices. Anything else is ignorance, pure and simple.

Reply 184

Galatea

Charlybob

No, it'd only be belittling if all forms of life had a value.

We're nothing special, we just over-complicate survival.

I'm not talking about survival, or being top of the food chain or whatever. I was talking about the abilities and capacities that are indisputably exclusive to the human race; our intellect, our morals, our emotions, etc. Do you not agree that these do in some ways make the human race 'different'? To say that we are no different to animals is to deny such abilities.

Reply 185

Charlybob

Galatea

surely everything in the universe has some kind of value ascribed to it; a purpose or a function of some sort. But anyway, it's beside the point; to make no distinctions between people and animals is to belittle people; it ignores what is special and differential about the human race.

I'm not talking about survival, or being top of the food chain or whatever. I was talking about the abilities and capacities that are indisputably exclusive to the human race; our intellect, our morals, our emotions, etc. Do you not agree that these do in some ways make the human race 'different'? To say that we are no different to animals is to deny such abilities.

Don't. Just don't. You're moving closer and closer towards "is there god or are we around by chance" territory now, and I'm not doing that.

And you'd be suprised. Those aren't really exclusive. Yes we are the most intellectual animal, but to say it's a unique characteristic is just insulting to animals. And you think animals don't have morals or emotions? Go spend half an hour with a dog and it'll prove you very wrong.

Reply 186

Galatea

Charlybob

Don't. Just don't. You're moving closer and closer towards "is there god or are we around by chance" territory now, and I'm not doing that.

You've clearly misunderstood me, I'm not talking about anything like that; saying that everything has a function doesn't mean I want to have an off topic 'is there a god' debate.

And you'd be suprised. Those aren't really exclusive. Yes we are the most intellectual animal, but to say it's a unique characteristic is just insulting to animals. And you think animals don't have morals or emotions? Go spend half an hour with a dog and it'll prove you very wrong.

I'm not saying animals don't have emotions; they are of course 'sentient' beings, and are capable or love, loyalty, etc, but the fact remains that our emotional range and capacities; still vastly supersede those of an animal.

Other animals have intelligence, I never said otherwise, but note I said 'intellect' - the ability to think abstractedly or profoundly - not 'intelligence' that is exclusive to humans.
But our intelligence is differentially superior in our capacity for deep analysis and profundities. In this sense, yes, our intelligence is unique.

And the human capacity to make moral choices, and feel remorse is certainly unique. You cannot seriously be saying that there are no emotional or intellectual differences between animals and humans.

Reply 187

Dill

Peanut42

You do realise these 'random people' have families just like you do? What if your mum is picked as one of these 'randoms' to have tests done on her? Would you agree with human testing then?

I'm saying I don't agree with testing on random people. I'm saying I'd choose one of my parents or my boyfriend to stay alive over a randomer, but this doesn't mean I agree with testing on them. I don't see why you thought I agreed with testing things on random people, since in my first post I said something like "I'd choose the life of someone I love over a random person, but this doesn't mean we can test on them."
Basically, I said it because the argument for testing on animals is usually "I'd prefer my mum to live than lots of rats", but I (and probably most people) would choose the life of their mother over a few people they don't know, but this doesn't mean that it's ok to test on those people (now extend that to rats).

Reply 188

crazyhelicopter

Ok I seem to have missed a lot, but just to put my 2 pennies in (sorry if this is repeating earlier stuff)...

Student of Entomology

Why single out humans as having rights then?

We don't, animals do have rights, and there are specific regulations behind testing to make it as humane as possible. In fact animals in labs are for the most part better cared for than animals in the community.

We regard different animals as having a higher importance than others for example, mice and rats are low down the hierachy, chimpanzes are pretty much as high as you can go, and humans are at the top. Testing rules and procedures reflect this.

A human, regardless of it's mental state is a human, and whether you like it or not, is in the current climate regarded as superior to a mouse. Testing needs to be carried out on the mouse before testing in humans can commence because we need to know if there is likely to be a reaction in the human. It isn't perfect but its the best we've got.

Lisa.22

i think all the rapists peodophiles murderers etc, should be tested not innocent animals... but thats never gunna happen

Animals aren't innocent darling, they just don't have to conform to our rules. They steal, murder, commit paedophilia, infanticide and incest. In fact by these standards you are virtually supporting animal testing.

Reply 189

Student of Entomology

crazyhelicopter

We regard different animals as having a higher importance than others for example, mice and rats are low down the hierachy, chimpanzes are pretty much as high as you can go, and humans are at the top. Testing rules and procedures reflect this.

Yes but this 'hierarchy' is just one which we have fabricated. There is no 'ladder' of life with us on top and then below us chimpanzees then... dolphins.. whatever next... all the way down to the choanoflagellates. The picture of life on the planet isn't like that. Ants are by far more important in terrestrial ecosystems than we are, why aren't they #1? Because we are the ones to ascribe importance to ourselves. I'm not doubting we are the most intellectually advanced group, and i'm not belittling our achievements, but judging purely on phylogeny is arbitrary.

Also having worked in rabbit, rat and dog units for preclinical tox saftey assessment: yes the animals are looked after well, very well, they have good living conditions, professional dedicated trainers, play areas etc. However just becareful not to delude yourself. These dogs will be repeatedly vomiting after dosing, they often lose control of their bowels, experience vaginal bleeding, swelling, loss of action of limbs, blindness etc.. Of course animals showing serious clinical observations will be terminated to prevent suffering, but it's not all rosy. Essential though.

Reply 190

curiouslyorange1989

Charlybob

animals dont have the capacity to be insulted....

Reply 191

crazyhelicopter

Student of Entomology

Yes but this 'heirachy' is just one which we have fabricated. There is no 'ladder' of life with us on top and then below us chimpanzees then... dolphins.. whatever next... all the way down to the choanoflagellates. The picture of life on the planet isn't like that. Ants are by far more important in terrestrial ecosystems than we are, why aren't they #1? Because we are the ones to ascribe importance to ourselves. I'm not doubting we are the most intellectually advanced group, and i'm not belittling our achievements, but judging purely on phylogeny is arbitrary.

It may be completely arbitrary but as we are the people conducting the research it is up to us to make it morally acceptable to us. When the ants take over, they can choose the guidelines

Also having worked in rabbit, rat and dog units for preclinical tox saftey assessment: yes the animals are looked after well, very well, they have good living conditions, professional dedicated trainers, play areas etc. However just becareful not to delude yourself. These dogs will be repeatedly vomiting after dosing, they often lose control of their bowels, experience vaginal bleeding, swelling, loss of action of limbs, blindness etc.. Of course animals showing serious clinical observations will be terminated to prevent suffering, but it's not all rosy. Essential though.

I have also worked in labs and completely agree, it isn't at all rosy, but it is considerably better than animal rights protesters make it out to be, and as you say essential