| Baman already nailed it in his first post in this thread. I know some people who are even against medical testing. Also I have to lol hard at the OP calling the companies monsters. |
| To make things more concise: *suffering = avoidable, unnecessary, nonconsensual suffering. suffering = blanket term for prolonged mental/emotional/physical pain. hikky said: No, no we don't have a problem. First of all, I am not advocating the elimination of suffering. Second of all, just because *suffering can't be entirely eliminated, doesn't mean that we can't work to minimize it – precisely because we find it unacceptable.You cannot eliminate this suffering entirely, and since it is never acceptable, we have a problem, don't we? hikky said: Yes it does. Minimizing *suffering means reducing the chances that individuals would have to encounter it, as well as working to relieve those who are already *suffering. This process also has the effect of relieving tension in society overall. Thus, any way you look at it, the world becomes an increasingly more pleasant place to live.It doesn't make the world a more pleasant place to live for everybody; for some it is just as awful as it would have otherwise been. hikky said: I have never skirted around that. I acknowledge that *suffering will always exist, and am offering ways to decrease, mitigate, and relieve it. Because every step taken in that direction means that somebody somewhere will not have to *suffer, and somebody already *suffering will *suffer less or be freed from it altogether. And no, I don't subscribe to your idea that one person *suffering is morally or socially equivalent to the whole world *suffering. It would not make that one person's *suffering any more acceptable, but a world with less beings *suffering will still be preferable for me.The choice of humans to continue living has the direct consequence of causing immense and terrible suffering to living beings. There is no skirting around that. hikky said: Oh FFS, seriously? You CAN'T do the impossible. You CAN work with what's possible. You keep bringing up absolutist ideas which are innately unworkable. Things are not all or nothing. They come in degrees of better or worse, more preferable or less preferable. When we set a goal and work towards it, an abstract ideal can be the beacon we follow but it need never be perfectly achieved to benefit from it.People can't consent to their birth. Some people who are born will take little pleasure, and mostly suffering, from life, and spend life wishing they had never been born. If beings are suffering from physical or mental disease, we can work towards healing them. We will never cure everybody, but so long as we do something about it there is a chance that some will be cured, and so the overall situation improves. I don't necessarily consider this *suffering, though. it may not happen with conscious consent (unless your own habits cause the disease), but (such as in the case of genetics) it is also unavoidable, and “necessity” can't even be applied. hikky said: See “just because you can't do everything, doesn't mean you should do nothing” and the rest of my initial reply.My whole point here is that people simply do what satisfies their feelings. If they have empathy then they try not to hurt other living beings. They still hurt other living beings, but as long as they don't do it intentionally and wilfully they decide that it's acceptable. * * * * * * * Zmffkskem said: I already explained my gray area, and I don't think it's significantly different from the reality we belong to. Meaning, the reality we belong to is not perfect, and I never said a consent system would eliminate suffering. I would, however, consider sideffects happening to consenting individuals more justifiable than sideffects happening to individuals who had no choice in the matter at all. The former accepts responsibility for risk by virtue of the job they agreed to. You don't become a field cop without accepting the risk of injury or death. Everything possible should be done to minimize that risk, but it still remains and you can't claim ignorance of it.It's also humane even if they give consent. Because consent for torture is the same as every other 'consent' on the Earth. [/sarcasm] … Informed consent is difficult to determine, and will remain so. Fundamentally I would not say such is wrong, but again the difference to reality we belong to is too significant. Zmffkskem said: I call it the stimulus for scientific progress because virtually all discovery/invention in applied science comes from the desire to solve an existing problem; ie: to provide an alternative for a previously unavoidable circumstance. People didn't like carrying water from streams in buckets so they invented plumbing; people didn't like lifting heavy things so they invented machines; people didn't like getting sick so they invented cures."Scientific progress?" I would consider it "scientific regression." That link I provided is a center for discovering alternatives to animal testing. Looking for such alternatives progresses science, and finding them may one day eliminate the need to use human or non-human test subjects, as well as take care of all the “practicalities” you listed. Alternatives to many forms of testing exist already, which results in reduction to *suffering and an increase in efficiency. More and more will be discovered. This should be actively encouraged and subsidized. This kind of stimulus is analogous to the kind that fuels social change, including the implementation of increasingly better laws/regulations through political and legal action. |
Neiru2013Sep 11, 2011 9:56 PM
| I think that animal testing is morally sound. Look, when people think of stopping animal testing, they think they're saving Bambi and the woodland critters from being experimented on, which would have caused much distress to the animals, since it's basically torture. They're wrong. Animal testing is not done on cute little bunnies in the countryside that they mercilessly trapped and taken to the facility, it's done on animals that were born in the facility for the sole purpose of being tested on. If you just stopped animal testing altogether, you would only be saving a few animals, and those are the ones that were being tested on at the moment. Past those few, you wouldn't be saving any animals, it's just that they wouldn't have been born in the first place, since there'd no longer be a purpose for them. Simply put, you'd stop a whole lot of animals from have ever being born. You might suggest that a life being tortured on, which is meaningless for the animal is worse than never being born, but testing rarely leads to pain in animals and life is no more pointless for them than it is for animals in the wild. So, how can you say that it's wrong for animals to be tested on, it justifies their existence. If there was no animal testing, animals born for the purpose wouldn't be born. Surely life is better than non-existence? That is why animal testing is morally justified. In fact, companies doing so can take the moral high-ground. |
| These conversations always get so boring when they turn into big text walls... Neiru2012 said: I have never skirted around that. I acknowledge that *suffering will always exist, and am offering ways to decrease, mitigate, and relieve it. Because every step taken in that direction means that somebody somewhere will not have to *suffer, and somebody already *suffering will *suffer less or be freed from it altogether. And no, I don't subscribe to your idea that one person *suffering is morally or socially equivalent to the whole world *suffering. It would not make that one person's *suffering any more acceptable, but a world with less beings *suffering will still be preferable for me. I think this is the fundamental question--whether you believe that less people "*suffering" is somehow better than many people *suffering. It's the idea that is important, that to whatever degree, you are willing to contribute to the *suffering of others to continue living. I am certainly absolutist on this point because I don't think you can call yourself against *suffering when causing *suffering is a very fundamental dynamic of life as we know it. To me it seems more like a case of an uncomfortable reality that people do not like to come to terms with. That and, we're talking about accepting future *suffering, which for all we know is ~infinite, no matter how many attempts are taken to prevent it. But I'm not saying you shouldn't try to minimize *suffering or that I wouldn't do the same, I'm saying you should admit that you do that because it feels better, and as hard as it is to accept, that is not a more legitimate or superior thing to do. "The animals had to *suffer for the happiness of the consumer" is just as much a reason as "the animals had to *suffer because I have to eat," because eating is also avoidable if you are seriously opposed to causing *suffering to others. |
hikkySep 11, 2011 7:16 PM
| There's nothing wrong with animal testing if you ask me. They aren't sentient creatures. We're the top of the evolutionary scale and if it benefits us then its good for me. Plus I bet the majority of the animal rights activist are hypocrites in the sense that they wouldn't take a stand for an animal they didn't like. If someone says 'animal testing' you probably think of the "poor cute animals"..Monkeys, dogs and such. Would you take a stand for the insects, the rats and other animals that you would find gross or unpleasant? Probably not. You're just satisfying your own ego by standing against something you think is wrong. You're just doing it to feel good about yourself at the end of the day. |
| *suffering = avoidable, unnecessary, nonconsensual suffering. suffering = blanket term for prolonged mental/emotional/physical pain. hikky said: But I'm not saying you shouldn't try to minimize *suffering or that I wouldn't do the same, I'm saying you should admit that you do that because it feels better Yeah, I admit that people want to minimize *suffering because that creates a better world for everybody and this in turn benefits them and makes them feel happy... what's wrong with that, again? hikky said: "The animals had to *suffer for the happiness of the consumer" is just as much a reason as "the animals had to *suffer because I have to eat," because eating is also avoidable if you are seriously opposed to causing *suffering to others. No it's not, because inflicting *suffering in the form of testing consumer products is different from immediate survival. I don't consider killing for food/survival *suffering since it is necessary and unavoidable if you are to live, whereas product testing is not. I wouldn't even consider killing for food/survival suffering because it is not prolonged mental/physical/emotional pain if done the old-fashioned way (go into the forest and track down some prey, like every other self-respecting animal; factory farming IS both suffering and *suffering). And I do consider "living" an unavoidable condition unless you're suggesting everyone should commit suicide. I don't think the latter is normally a good idea. As I said before, I am against *suffering, not necessarily suffering. Suffering is part of life as much as joy is, and this variety of experience is what makes life personally meaningful. I do not see the world as a downward spiral of nothing but despair. |
Neiru2013Sep 11, 2011 11:04 PM
| they deserve KARMA! >< |
InfiniteRyvius said: I think that animal testing is morally sound. Look, when people think of stopping animal testing, they think they're saving Bambi and the woodland critters from being experimented on, which would have caused much distress to the animals, since it's basically torture. They're wrong. Animal testing is not done on cute little bunnies in the countryside that they mercilessly trapped and taken to the facility, it's done on animals that were born in the facility for the sole purpose of being tested on. If you just stopped animal testing altogether, you would only be saving a few animals, and those are the ones that were being tested on at the moment. Past those few, you wouldn't be saving any animals, it's just that they wouldn't have been born in the first place, since there'd no longer be a purpose for them. Simply put, you'd stop a whole lot of animals from have ever being born. You might suggest that a life being tortured on, which is meaningless for the animal is worse than never being born, but testing rarely leads to pain in animals and life is no more pointless for them than it is for animals in the wild. So, how can you say that it's wrong for animals to be tested on, it justifies their existence. If there was no animal testing, animals born for the purpose wouldn't be born. Surely life is better than non-existence? That is why animal testing is morally justified. In fact, companies doing so can take the moral high-ground. CONDOMS ARE EVIL!!!! You do realize that the animals had to come from somewhere in the first place yeah? And if released or never taken in the first place they would breed in the wild like they normally do. Even if say clones were used it doesn't make it right because they wouldn't have existed otherwise. By saying that they wouldn't have existed otherwise so it's all okay is ridiculous, the same stance can be taken on humans as well, parents can do whatever they want to their kids because otherwise they wouldn't have existed. It is wrong to create life just so you can use it for whatever purpose you feel. Morals and ethics don't really count to things that don't exist, well I don't think so, that would make life nothing more than continuous breeding. Naotoholic said: There's nothing wrong with animal testing if you ask me. They aren't sentient creatures. And when did this information appear? Naotoholic said: We're the top of the evolutionary scale and if it benefits us then its good for me. I love how people bring up this sort of argument but I bet if it came to using the same logic between humans in which the more fit to survive is automatically right it would be a different story. Evolution isn't just competition between other species. Naotoholic said: Would you take a stand for the insects, the rats and other animals that you would find gross or unpleasant? I don't consider myself an animal activist but I would take a stand (or really be against it as I'm aware most things people try to do are useless) if it was happening to anything that showed some kind of consciousness I guess that is being killed or tortured for no good reason. |
Dark_PuddlesSep 11, 2011 9:55 PM
 |
Neiru2012 said: No it's not, because inflicting *suffering in the form of testing consumer products is different from immediate survival. I don't consider killing for food/survival *suffering since it is necessary and unavoidable if you are to live, whereas product testing is not. I wouldn't even consider killing for food/survival suffering because it is not prolonged mental/physical/emotional pain if done the old-fashioned way (go into the forest and track down some prey, like every other self-respecting animal; factory farming IS both suffering and *suffering). And I do consider "living" an unavoidable condition unless you're suggesting everyone should commit suicide. I don't think the latter is normally a good idea. As I said before, I am against *suffering, not necessarily suffering. Suffering is part of life as much as joy is, and this variety of experience is what makes life personally meaningful. I do not see the world as a downward spiral of nothing but despair. Yeah, and this is the real point, the definition for *suffering is flexible, it's just whatever you want it to be, even if the end result is exactly the same. Why do you need to live? There's no actual need for that. humans didn't exist for billions and billions of years and everything was perfectly fine. You just want to keep living. Like some people want nice hair or to know if chemical X is a carcinogen. Killing is killing, causing suffering is causing suffering. "For survival" is only a more legitimate reason if you feel that it is; it's still a purely selfish act. "My survival is more important than the survival of other animals". Also, these aren't hunter-gatherer times. One farmer feeds over a hundred people these days and that requires some real efficiency. Well, big surprise here but efficiency doesn't favor the comfort of the meal or the casualties of the harvest. It doesn't matter what your ideals are, this is how it works and this is what we are all directly or indirectly a part of. |
| *suffering = avoidable, unnecessary, nonconsensual suffering. suffering = blanket term for prolonged mental/emotional/physical pain. hikky said: Yeah, and this is the real point, the definition for *suffering is flexible, it's just whatever you want it to be, even if the end result is exactly the same. I gave my definitions of suffering and *suffering, and the results are not the same. I'm sorry if absolutism blinds you to this. hikky said: Why do you need to live? There's no actual need for that. humans didn't exist for billions and billions of years and everything was perfectly fine. You just want to keep living. Yes, I presuppose that living is generally a good thing. For all living beings from the dawn of time. And I base everything else around this. If beings didn't have this hardwired into them, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because everybody would be dead, and there would be no *suffering, suffering, or happiness. I don't think that would make the world a better place, because there would be nobody around to experience it... hikky said: "For survival" is only a more legitimate reason if you feel that it is; it's still a purely selfish act. "My survival is more important than the survival of other animals". I've never denied that the desire to be alive and avoid *suffering is a selfish thing. I don't see how this kind of selfishness is bad. To sustain our lives, there is a basic requirement of nourishing our body. This is true for all animals and we are all participants in this process. This does not mean that I think my survival is more important than the survival of other animals (humans included), nor do I see it as less important. I see my interests in living and theirs as equal, and that is exactly why I want to work towards a world where they are able to freely pursue their interests like I am, subject to the basic realities of survival and experience. hikky said: One farmer feeds over a hundred people these days and that requires some real efficiency. Well, big surprise here but efficiency doesn't favor the comfort of the meal or the casualties of the harvest. It doesn't matter what your ideals are, this is how it works and this is what we are all directly or indirectly a part of. Ohhboy, absolutism again... 9_9 I agree that factory farms are horrible, and that's why I've taken myself out of that system by choosing to be vegan. I realize that there are animals who die by accident in the harvesting of plants, and I definitely think that system can be improved upon, but as of right now I've done as much as I could. I think the intensity and unnecessariness of entire lifetimes of intentional *suffering going on at factory farms is a vastly greater evil than a chance of swift death by harvesting machines after living an otherwise normal life. In this way I didn't do everything, but I did do something, and me boycotting the factory farming industry means that many less animals will be *suffering for me. I can continue to oppose factory farming through political and legal action. Individuals with motives similar to mine are increasing, and they add up. I think the world is moving in a more sane and sustainable direction this way. (NOTE: You do not have to be vegan to "do something." I was just giving that as an example.) This is getting very repetitive. If you keep using unworkable absolutist principles which ignore the real spectrum of experience, if you believe that one being *suffering is morally equivalent to a whole world *suffering, if you feel the prospect of *suffering in the future is functionally equivalent to an infinite amount of *suffering now, if you think convenience is on the same level as survival, and if you can't accept self-preservation as a fundamental interest all living beings share along with the direct consequences of it, we're never gonna get anywhere. You're basically saying that, despite a genuine desire to help, any degree of action taken to improve the world is essentially meaningless because it will never reach the impossible standard of perfection. |
Neiru2013Sep 12, 2011 5:12 PM
InfiniteRyvius said: True, not everyone, but the majority do. If you do tell someone about the company they're buying from, they will express second thoughts, but many, as soon as you're out of sight, will go and buy it anyway. People are way too conceited to be honest and say "that's fine and all, but it's cheaper and that's what matters to me". People need to maintain an image that the're nice. But do you not have a problem with my argument saying that animal testing is okay? Maybe some of them, but I wouldn't agree that the majority are pretending. I can understand how you would get that impression from high school and college, as young people do indeed tend to be very selfish. That's normal, but as they get older they become a lot less self-centered. Some of them will always be that way of course. If you don't believe me, try getting involved with some of the older members of society. Nope, I have no problem with your argument, but since you asked I did find it a little silly. There's no harm in that, is there? |
SaitoeSep 29, 2011 2:04 AM
Dark_Puddles said: CONDOMS ARE EVIL!!!! You do realize that the animals had to come from somewhere in the first place yeah? And if released or never taken in the first place they would breed in the wild like they normally do. Even if say clones were used it doesn't make it right because they wouldn't have existed otherwise. By saying that they wouldn't have existed otherwise so it's all okay is ridiculous, the same stance can be taken on humans as well, parents can do whatever they want to their kids because otherwise they wouldn't have existed. It is wrong to create life just so you can use it for whatever purpose you feel. Morals and ethics don't really count to things that don't exist, well I don't think so, that would make life nothing more than continuous breeding. Damn it, I didn't think anyone would make the link to the Catholic belief that preventing life is evil so quickly. Yes, that's what I based my argument off, and I'm still going to argue the point. Despite the fact I agree with you. I realize of course that the original animals had to come from somewhere, and yes, left in the wild they wold breed. However, as anyone who did biology at any level would know, the is a natural limit to the size of populations. Food gets scarce, predators get more numerous since they have more to eat since your own population is increasing. When you take the animals out the wild, there will brief drop in the population, but within a month or two it would seem as if none had ever been taken. This is especially true of rabbits and rats, since they breed like... well, rabbits. Clones don't come into it, but that's a good ploy of premeditating an opponents refute. Your second point is fair enough, but it's flawed. You say that if I extended the argument to humans, parents beating children would be okay. This is wrong. Unless the parents had a child for the sole reason so that they could beat it up, your point is not valid. The beating lies outside the purpose of their birth. If one of the animals tested was unnecessarily tortured, I would be against that, it's the same with children, parents have kids because they want to have kids and raise them, or possibly an accident. In any case, even if said child was an accident, surely it would be better for him to live, no matter what he suffered, than to have not existed? You say that would make life just continuous breeding, but frankly, it is (well, people with religion would disagree, but I'm hoping you have no religion). In the end, yes, it is wrong to treat animals whatever way you want, but isn't it a greater evil to deny their existence? Surely you would choose the lesser of two evils? |
Neiru2012 said: Zmffkskem said: I already explained my gray area, and I don't think it's significantly different from the reality we belong to. Meaning, the reality we belong to is not perfect, and I never said a consent system would eliminate suffering. I would, however, consider sideffects happening to consenting individuals more justifiable than sideffects happening to individuals who had no choice in the matter at all. The former accepts responsibility for risk by virtue of the job they agreed to. You don't become a field cop without accepting the risk of injury or death. Everything possible should be done to minimize that risk, but it still remains and you can't claim ignorance of it.It's also humane even if they give consent. Because consent for torture is the same as every other 'consent' on the Earth. [/sarcasm] … Informed consent is difficult to determine, and will remain so. Fundamentally I would not say such is wrong, but again the difference to reality we belong to is too significant. Suffering is your bone with hikky, but I'm saying its far from practicality because of social norms which prevail today. Going by 'human psychology,' an inadequate amount of people would say yes to such dangerous testing anyway. Unless you want to compensate them just for getting tested on, which is even more ridiculous anyway. Actually, I also don't see an 'idealised' society ever agreeing with your ideas as well. Also about suffering: anaesthesia is relevant. I don't see 'suffering' as your problem: remove the feeling and I guess testing is okay? No, according to you, the animal did not choose. I would think that is more important and meaningful than a 'suffering' argument. Choice is an idea grounded in fundamental philosophy: more of it is up to belief, and less open for debate. Suffering, however, is not. Suffering is manipulable given current technology, and can be zero-ed using anaesthesia. |
 「みんながいるからだ。」 － 棗鈴 |
CrimsonGlaive said: Agreed, but people will simply not give a shit, instead they will keep buying these products, indirectly perpetuating the misery of animals by supporting the cruel manufacturers.Medicine aside, there is absolutely no excuse for carrying out horrific and cruel testing on living creatures for cosmetics and household goods. Read up on it if you can, it's heavy stuff. |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
InfiniteRyvius said: In the end, yes, it is wrong to treat animals whatever way you want, but isn't it a greater evil to deny their existence? Surely you would choose the lesser of two evils? Quality of life is clearly more important than quantity of life for me. I don't see how quantity of life (ie: quantity of existence) even matters. The only time I can think of when quantity of life matters is if there is too much life (overpopulation) or too little of it (underpopulation), and it matters then only because it affects quality of life. A life of neverending suffering robbed of all prospects of relief because somebody else took away your self-determination is no life at all. This isn't simply challenges occurring as a result of you freely interact with the world, it is a denial of your personhood. It is the suppression of the thoughts and emotions you have as a sentient being as well as your ability to express them. What's the point of existence if you can't do anything with it? How is that preferable to death or different from non-existence? It is insanity suggest that existence for the sake of existing somehow justifies torture as a "lesser of two evils." Zmffkskem said: I don't see 'suffering' as your problem: remove the feeling and I guess testing is okay? No, according to you, the animal did not choose. I would think that is more important and meaningful than a 'suffering' argument. I've been saying that all along. I am not against suffering in principle. I am against avoidable, unnecessary, and un-consented-to suffering; yes, living as an autonomous being with the ability to pursue your interests through choice and take responsibility for your choices is key. As for testing on consenting beings, I would imagine some would volunteer and others would want compensation, just like it is done today. And I really don't care if paying them is expensive. Slave labor was the cheapest way to get things done in the USA but society decided that it is unconscionable and abolished it. Much money was lost, but somehow the country survived. Probably because paying people for doing work of their own will made sense. Likewise, intellectual and monetary profit doesn't justify the torture of unconsenting beings. Scientific knowledge is valuable and those being subjected to the risks have every right to demand being paid what it and they are worth. When society wants something, it re-prioritizes the system to find all kinds of ways to channel funding toward its goal. In fact, if you look at history, it is precisely when industries get economically pressured that most technological innovation happens. And as more and more alternatives are discovered, I'm confident that in the foreseeable future we won't need to experiment on living beings nearly as much as we do now, if at all, and that this process will be the most practical, efficient, and ethical way to go about testing. |
| Make-up and other shit that is irrelevant to mankind should be banned from animal testing and everyone associated with it sentenced to prison. Important medicine research should be tested on human volunteers that would be paid for the trouble. Ideally, these would be terminally-ill individuals. Only in the case that such a thing cannot be done, should we resort to animals, in a most humane way possible. |
Neiru2012 said: InfiniteRyvius said: Quality of life is clearly more important than quantity of life for me. I don't see how quantity of life (ie: quantity of existence) even matters. The only time I can think of when quantity of life matters is if there is too much life (overpopulation) or too little of it (underpopulation), and it matters then only because it affects quality of life. A life of neverending suffering robbed of all prospects of relief because somebody else took away your self-determination is no life at all. This isn't simply challenges occurring as a result of you freely interact with the world, it is a denial of your personhood. It is the suppression of the thoughts and emotions you have as a sentient being as well as your ability to express them. What's the point of existence if you can't do anything with it? How is that preferable to death or different from non-existence? It is insanity suggest that existence for the sake of existing somehow justifies torture as a "lesser of two evils."In the end, yes, it is wrong to treat animals whatever way you want, but isn't it a greater evil to deny their existence? Surely you would choose the lesser of two evils? I think this too, but the belief of Catholics (on which I decided to base an argument off) believe in the sanctity of life, which is sacred. This is why they say condoms are evil, because it's preventing potential life. It's the same here (though I'm not sure the sanctity of life extends to animals though, apparently humans are special or something), no matter how shit a life may be, preventing it is a crime against god. When I say evil I mean a crime against god, so it would be the lesser of two evils. You say a life of never ending suffering robbed of all prospects of relief because somebody else took away your self-determination is no life at all, but do you really think animals tested on really do live a life like that? Also, how is that life anymore pointless than a life where it ran free? How much suffering would you have to be experiencing before you decided it would be better if you had never existed? It would have to be extreme, more so than you'd probably endure being tested on I'd warrant. |
InfiniteRyvius said: I think this too, but the belief of Catholics (on which I decided to base an argument off) believe in the sanctity of life, which is sacred. I see. InfiniteRyvius said: You say a life of never ending suffering robbed of all prospects of relief because somebody else took away your self-determination is no life at all, but do you really think animals tested on really do live a life like that? Yes. InfiniteRyvius said: Also, how is that life anymore pointless than a life where it ran free? Because an autonomous animal is free to pursue their interests. They can go where they like, they can nest where they like, they can live in healthy communities, form relationships within that community, raise their young, and experience all the joy and pain that life has to offer. Most importantly, they can do this without unnecessary interference by somebody who wants to either infect/breed them to develop horrible diseases or squirt cosmetics in their face, all the while confining them in cages and questionable living conditions they did not consent to. InfiniteRyvius said: How much suffering would you have to be experiencing before you decided it would be better if you had never existed? It would have to be extreme, more so than you'd probably endure being tested on I'd warrant. That's true, my criteria for worthwhile-ness of existence is more complicated than just suffering, and I tried to emphasize this by adding "because somebody else took away your self-determination," "suppression of the thoughts and emotions you have as a sentient being as well as your ability to express them," "denial of your personhood" etc. Suffering is part of life as much as joy, and an autonomous being's ability to have this diversity of experience as a result of the choices they make in pursuit of their interests is what I would consider ideal and achievable. The criteria of autonomy is important because it means that even if you keep making choices that bring you suffering, as long as nobody is hanging over you and imposing their will over yours, there is still the possibility of you taking a path that improves your life in the future. As long as you are the master of your own life (or there is a real possibility of you becoming such if you're currently not free), and can work to steer it into whatever direction you want at will, I think existence is worthwhile. So scientific testing itself is not by itself reason to prefer non-existence, but the conditions that nonconsensual testing imposes on beings is (loss of autonomy, lack of a future, elimination of self-expression through choice, undeserved suffering that is not a result of your choices, etc). This problem does not come up with subjects who consented to the testing, take personal responsibility for the risk of suffering that comes from that choice, do not permanently lose their freedoms, and most likely get compensated for their help. |
Neiru2013Sep 14, 2011 5:41 AM
Neiru2012 said: You're basically saying that, despite a genuine desire to help, any degree of action taken to improve the world is essentially meaningless because it will never reach the impossible standard of perfection. I don't believe that you can "improve" the world. I believe you can attempt to shape it into something that reflects your ideals. Your ideals are not better or worse or more valid than someone else's, that's all. I was mainly trying to point out what I see as hypocrisy. You are against imposing *suffering except when you feel it is necessary. There is no objective basis for that necessity, though, so ultimately you're only against other people's imposition of *suffering. The point is that people don't agree on what is necessary and isn't. So yes, of course we don't agree on those things and that's okay, it doesn't have to go anywhere. |
| Nothing wrong with testing products/chemicals etc. on animals. It is only natural that a dominant species uses the ones below, and the animal tests are done to animals such as mice, dogs, cats etc. none of the species are in danger of extinction. Also humans are good for testing chemicals on. As we are already an overpopulated species. Mostly volunteers that get paid. But nothing wrong with keeping humans in captivity for testing. Even now, who nows if this is already happening. Nothing being told to the public and morally concerned people can happily live their lives. People should think for the best of the human race, not for individuals. |
Neiru2012 said: InfiniteRyvius said: Also, how is that life anymore pointless than a life where it ran free? Because an autonomous animal is free to pursue their interests. They can go where they like, they can nest where they like, they can live in healthy communities, form relationships within that community, raise their young, and experience all the joy and pain that life has to offer. Most importantly, they can do this without unnecessary interference by somebody who wants to either infect/breed them to develop horrible diseases or squirt cosmetics in their face, all the while confining them in cages and questionable living conditions they did not consent to. So scientific testing itself is not by itself reason to prefer non-existence, but the conditions that nonconsensual testing imposes on beings is (loss of autonomy, lack of a future, elimination of self-expression through choice, undeserved suffering that is not a result of your choices, etc). This problem does not come up with subjects who consented to the testing, take personal responsibility for the risk of suffering that comes from that choice, do not lose permanently lose their freedoms, and most likely get compensated for their help. Remember we are talking about rats and rabbits here, everything animals of that intelligence do is ensure that they pass on their genes to the next generation. Tell me, does a rabbit that's being fed, housed and protected from predators really wish it could be in the outside world where they have to compete with other rabbits for food, escape foxes and eagles, and find a place where they might sleep? This is a no anyway, due to the fact rabbits don't have the intelligence to comprehend the question and it's implications, but I don't see what problem they'd have. Since when have rabbits or rats cared about anything other than their survival and mating? I've gone of topic, basically, you've said that it's the suffering and the loss of control over their own lives is worse than no life at all. Rabbits and Rat never really had much control over their lives to begin with past instinct, so frankly I'll say I don't think that they'd care too much about losing most of the control over their own lives. Living gives the animals a chance to breed and pass on their genes to the next generation, and that's all animals living off instinct want. Therefore, any life is good enough for rats and rabbits. |
waalex11 said: they deserve KARMA! >< They deserve something that isn't real? |
InfiniteRyvius said: Remember we are talking about rats and rabbits here, everything animals of that intelligence do is ensure that they pass on their genes to the next generation. I find it odd you'd bring this up after you already stated that life is "continuous breeding." Still, I think you're vastly underestimating other species (ex: rats and rabbits) capacity to think, feel, and have fulfilling lives. Even aside from this, their ability to suffer is undeniable. This fundamental expression of conscious choice is common to all animals: the pursuit of pleasure instead of pain. InfiniteRyvius said: Tell me, does a rabbit that's being fed, housed and protected from predators really wish it could be in the outside world where they have to compete with other rabbits for food, escape foxes and eagles, and find a place where they might sleep? This is a no anyway, due to the fact rabbits don't have the intelligence to comprehend the question and it's implications, but I don't see what problem they'd have. The heightened standards and regulations for how animals are kept in science and the food industry are the result of many studies showing that animals (humans included) in unnatural conditions go loopy. This isn't hard to grasp from either an intuitive or an evolutionary standpoint. All animals have basic natural behaviors they need to express whether they've ever been outside or not. They need things such as sunlight, open space, exercise, entertainment, establishing territory and social relationships, physically/mentally stimulating interaction with their environment, and whatever species-specific behaviors they need to engage in to stay sane. If they don't have opportunities to do these things, they will start showing severe signs of stress and anxiety, including irritation, aggression, cannibalism, over/under eating, depression, restlessness (repeat behavior such as pacing and rocking), lowered immune systems, disease, increased mortality rate, etc. The same things that happen to humans under stress. Here is a species-specific example of how unnatural living conditions affect chickens. |
| I'm all in for killing cute kittens for science. |
| -Fixing- |
Neiru2012 said: InfiniteRyvius said: Remember we are talking about rats and rabbits here, everything animals of that intelligence do is ensure that they pass on their genes to the next generation. I find it odd you'd bring this up after you already stated that life is "continuous breeding." Still, I think you're vastly underestimating other species (ex: rats and rabbits) capacity to think, feel, and have fulfilling lives. Even aside from this, their ability to suffer is undeniable. This fundamental expression of conscious choice is common to all animals: the pursuit of pleasure instead of pain. InfiniteRyvius said: Tell me, does a rabbit that's being fed, housed and protected from predators really wish it could be in the outside world where they have to compete with other rabbits for food, escape foxes and eagles, and find a place where they might sleep? This is a no anyway, due to the fact rabbits don't have the intelligence to comprehend the question and it's implications, but I don't see what problem they'd have. The heightened standards and regulations for how animals are kept in science and the food industry are the result of many studies showing that animals (humans included) in unnatural conditions go loopy. This isn't hard to grasp from either an intuitive or an evolutionary standpoint. All animals have basic natural behaviors they need to express whether they've ever been outside or not. They need things such as sunlight, open space, exercise, entertainment, establishing territory and social relationships, physically/mentally stimulating interaction with their environment, and whatever species-specific behaviors they need to engage in to stay sane. If they don't have opportunities to do these things, they will start showing severe signs of stress and anxiety, including irritation, aggression, cannibalism, over/under eating, depression, restlessness (repeat behavior such as pacing and rocking), lowered immune systems, disease, increased mortality rate, etc. The same things that happen to humans under stress. Here is a species-specific example of how unnatural living conditions affect chickens. Indeed I was vastly understating the capacity of animals to think and feel, simply being able to breed would not fulfill their lives or make them content. Your argument concerning the fact that animals in unnatural conditions will suffer from stress and anxiety that will lead to several harrowing results is the deal breaker. It would be unreasonable for me to continue arguing, I could only point to the Catholic's belief in the absolute Sanctity of life (That a life no matter how shit is better than no life) if I were to continue arguing, and I'm not a Catholic, and I think the Sanctity of Life is stupid as well. Indeed, I've been arguing a view-point that's not mine. Therefore, you, Neiru2012, have won this argument. |
InfiniteRyvius said: Indeed I was vastly understating the capacity of animals to think and feel, simply being able to breed would not fulfill their lives or make them content. Your argument concerning the fact that animals in unnatural conditions will suffer from stress and anxiety that will lead to several harrowing results is the deal breaker. It would be unreasonable for me to continue arguing Glad we found common ground. ^_^ Here's some more fun rat stories. This brings me to a point I keep forgetting to make since I take it for granted: animals have individual personalities. That in itself demonstrates a sentient being who has a meaningful relationship with their environment and forms unique relationships with other beings. |
Neiru2012 said: Zmffkskem said: I don't see 'suffering' as your problem: remove the feeling and I guess testing is okay? No, according to you, the animal did not choose. I would think that is more important and meaningful than a 'suffering' argument. I've been saying that all along. I am not against suffering in principle. I am against avoidable, unnecessary, and un-consented-to suffering; yes, living as an autonomous being with the ability to pursue your interests through choice and take responsibility for your choices is key. So no mention to anaesthesia? Or do you mean the poor quality of life? What about a life of good food, good conditions? It's somewhat illusory, but hey, it's considering the quality of life of the animals in question, right? I do not see the suffering. Neiru2012 said: Intelligence is yet another subjective topic. I would prefer Occam's razor and arguments of one point only, which to you is a fundamental right of choice.InfiniteRyvius said: Remember we are talking about rats and rabbits here, everything animals of that intelligence do is ensure that they pass on their genes to the next generation. I find it odd you'd bring this up after you already stated that life is "continuous breeding." Still, I think you're vastly underestimating other species (ex: rats and rabbits) capacity to think, feel, and have fulfilling lives. Even aside from this, their ability to suffer is undeniable. This fundamental expression of conscious choice is common to all animals: the pursuit of pleasure instead of pain. Intelligence is vaguely defined. If you want 'information,' you should go for information theory, and the key idea would be entropy. For spontaneous moments of creativity, all I can say is that it probably is a probabilistic event(or that currently, our best model would be one with probabilities). Other than that pointless scientific take on intelligence, I don't see its relevance. Intelligence and Emotions do not mix well. Subjective + subjective = more subjective. Subjective arguments don't hold, unless you have a fundamental idea that, by itself, should sound reasonable, and generally would be one of belief. If there are no inconsistencies, misconceptions, inaccuracies, etc... etc... then there is almost 'no point' arguing because it is belief-based at that point. More often than not, I'm just really asking: 'What are you saying? Clearer, and less ambiguously.' That's exactly my style. |
「みんながいるからだ。」 － 棗鈴 |
| AnnoKano: Very good. You finally decided to be reasonable and sensible. You see? It makes your post actually worth reading. Although I don't exactly have anything to add. You surprised me. You've nailed it exceptionally well. I'm very happy. Cheers for joining the boycott too. |
| AnnoKano: I disagree with most of that, and some of it is just wrong. But it's way too much effort to say why, so pardon me while I don't. Maybe if you gave me some of your youthful energy. Haha, I'm teasing. |
| Okay, I want to pose a slightly different question: Is it even okay to test animals for medicinal purposes? Animals are incredibly different from us, they are infected by different diseases, have different antibodies, different tissue and different hormones. Testing medicines for use on humans on animals is not effective, often the only thing the test can show is whether the new medicine is harmful. Cancer research does work with animals, but this is a rarity. Shouldn't we only use animal testing where it is actually effective? |
Zmffkskem said: I would prefer Occam's razor and arguments of one point only, which to you is a fundamental right of choice. I know Occam's razor is convenient, but if an issue can't be simplified, it shouldn't be. Choice factors very prominently in my reasoning, but only in the context of other factors (such as suffering, necessity, autonomy, avoidability). Zmffkskem said: Intelligence is vaguely defined. Yeah, I agree, “intelligence” is a very ambiguous concept. I was not relying on it for my points, though I did a couple sentence tangent on it to clear up a misconception just because it was brought up. I'll go on another quick tangent for the hell of it: I like the “problem-solving” definition of intelligence, which looks at how a being deals with challenges relevant to their life. So, for example, figuring out a computer error is not relevant to the life of a mouse, but getting out of a mouse trap is. Intelligence can also be broadly defined as mental activity, which is relevant for the point below. Zmffkskem said: Intelligence and Emotions do not mix well. Subjective + subjective = more subjective. Subjective arguments don't hold, unless you have a fundamental idea that, by itself, should sound reasonable, and generally would be one of belief. Personality, intelligence, emotions, attachments, preferences, etc are properties of sentience. Individual variation in these properties among sentient beings arise from them internally processing (ie: interpreting, not just automatically reacting to) a unique stream of experience, so all sentient beings are inherently subjective. However, this subjectivity is not some irreconcilable or random chaos. All animals (including humans) share DNA and basic elements of physiology and psychology that result in some universal shared interests: self-preservation, seeking of pleasure, avoidance of pain, etc. This is the foundation of choice, and no matter how elaborate a system of personal preferences we develop, it is just a variation in strategy for pursuing these interests. Despite these interests being subjective, the fact that they are constant across sentient beings makes them functionally objective. Since everybody agrees on them, protecting these interests serves as a valid baseline for the formulation of morality. This morality is found anywhere sentient beings gather. Our interests matter to us, and we empathize with similar interests mattering to others, so we learn to accommodate each other if we are to coexist (all animals have social norms which they enforce among themselves). We can have a presumption in favor of protecting the baseline interests unless a being's choices indicate otherwise. The role of choice is important because it accounts for variation in individual preference. It doesn't negate the baseline interests, but alerts us to protect a different strategy for pursuing them (ex: individual consenting to potential pain for pursuit of pleasure that comes from knowing they're helping others). Freedom of choice is the basis for self-determination, which allows us to have personally fulfilling, meaningful lives. There will of course be cases where the interests of two or more individuals clash. The most obvious is the clash of self-preservation interest in the food chain. In such a clash of equal interests, it's no longer a matter of one taking something away from the other, but a direct consequence of the interest. Life feeding on life is necessary and unavoidable (no alternatives to it) to protect the interest of self-preservation, and is implicitly consented to by living (to have lived long enough to be eaten, one must have eaten something else). However, if there is a clash of interests where infringing on the will of others is avoidable or unnecessary, an alternative should be chosen. Zmffkskem said: So no mention to anaesthesia? Or do you mean the poor quality of life? What about a life of good food, good conditions? It's somewhat illusory, but hey, it's considering the quality of life of the animals in question, right? I do not see the suffering. I explained that in this reply. I don't think you can have good "quality of life" if your life is being used to test cosmetic products or painful, deadly diseases against your will. It's no longer your life. I think anesthesia is very important to reduce actual pain, and that everything should be done to alleviate the physical sensations of suffering that could result from testing, but these considerations only become valid when it comes to willing participants. If you are dealing with unwilling participants, you first have to get past the ethical question of “what gives you the right to usurp somebody else's life at all?” How does it make sense for sick Person A to say "this really sucks, I wish there was a cure," and then turn to a healthy unrelated Person B and say "you should be infected with the same thing I have and risk your life for my cure"? The former is a very important concern, but it doesn't justify the latter. Although it is related to the self-preservation interest, the connection is very vague: it is not a matter of direct survival or self-defense; the link between the sick person's cure and the person being tested on is very remote due to the unpredictable nature of scientific research; it is not a clash of equal interests since the healthy potential test subject's interest in self-preservation is much more certain and immediate. Moreover, alternative courses of action exist. /sorry for length ~_~; |
Neiru2013Sep 14, 2011 2:06 PM
Baman said: This is the problem with our sick sad world: people like this, who claim to be "civilized", "superior" and "intelligent", proud of their precious money and unecessary advanced products, buildings and technology, but in reality they have no morality, respect, or sensitivity, and only care about themselves.Humanity first. If over 9000 billion cute kittens have to die for even a minor medical advance in our favour, that's a perfectly acceptable price to pay. And after all, the only natural law is that might makes right, and we are the mightiest. Inflicting unnecessary pain and death on lesser species is another thing of course, I don't see any point in that, but how far does necessity go? These beauty products that's mentioned are supposed to be used on humans, so doesn't it make sense to properly test them out in order to ensure they are not harmful to us? And what better way to test them than on lesser non-sentient creatures? I just can't imagine any of these companies sacrificing thousands of cute little critters for fun, there's got to be a reason behind it. And let's face it, if they couldn't test these products, they'd probably just release them regardless, and that could lead to sickness, injury or death of humans. Sure, all these products might be all unnecessary luxuries, but isn't that what make our civilizations? even the most basic things we take for granted today are most all things we could live well without, and I'm sure a lot of these things come at high prices too. Our energy industry produce waste that kills wildlife, our food industry breed and slaughter animals in the millions and so on. So as long as it's not mere killing and torture for sport, I can't really bring myself to care. Even if it's just for unessential cremes and powders, these animals are still sacrificed for the sake of human progress, even if it's just for our consumerist culture. Humans betray, hate, lie, start wars for money, power, or in the name of a God they created, kill each other for no reason, destroy everything, pollute the world they live in, kill animals for sport, rape women, abuse children, get drunk, smoke cigarettes despite they know it gives them cancer, are keen on nuclear energy even if it could kill them all. They bitch about everything, but don't do anything to change things, and never learn from their mistakes. And yet they think they are the best race on Earth. To me, this makes them stupid, not superior. Cures for human diseases should be tested on humans, it is only natural. Why sacrifice an innocent animal? It's pointless and cruel, and it's not going to save anyone. The human body and its reactions are vastly different from the structure of a rat or a dog. Testing a cure for AIDS on a cat makes no sense, unless it's feline AIDS. Instead, as someone mentioned, we can use criminals, assassins, and rapists, who 1) being human, have the right type of body to be tested upon, and 2) are far from being innocent, so killing them is not a big loss. Instead of keeping those useless criminals in jail and feeding them with our money, let's use them for something. And obviously I am not referring to minor delinquents, guilty of a robbery, but to deranged killers, dictators, sadists, and rapists, with no sign of regret. Sounds too harsh? Not worse than killing a kitten to cure an old man. Animals are pure and innocent, assassins are not. If you kill, you have to be prepared to be killed. |
RenaPsychoKillerSep 14, 2011 2:02 PM
 watching, waiting, commiserating |
| I wonder what people would do if their child was dying, and the only way to save it was to drug an animal. Personally, I'd rather have a million dead animals than a dead son/daughter. |
Mr. Wonsworth, you may NOT eat my scones! |
Treekodar said: I wonder what people would do if their child was dying, and the only way to save it was to drug an animal. Personally, I'd rather have a million dead animals than a dead son/daughter. First of all, that's a very biased and unstable state of mind to be making decisions. Second of all, at that rate, why not drug a random human? It'd be more accurate than testing on another species if you want results ASAP. If somebody I loved was sick, and I thought I could find a cure by kidnapping a bunch of healthy humans and testing on them, would that make it okay? What if my kid has whatever your kid has and I thought it'd be most efficient to test on your kid so that my kid can live? |
Neiru2012 said: First of all, that's a very biased and unstable state of mind to be making decisions. Second of all, at that rate, why not drug a random human? It'd be more accurate than testing on another species if you want results ASAP. If somebody I loved was sick, and I thought I could find a cure by kidnapping a bunch of healthy humans and testing on them, would that make it okay? What if my kid has whatever your kid has and I thought it'd be most efficient to test on your kid so that my kid can live? The best part of your post is when you equate the life of an animal with that of a human. And just to make it clear: I do not find animals inferior, I just want my own species to survive above all else. |
| Mr. Wonsworth, you may NOT eat my scones! |
Neiru2012 said: That's right, I don't see my life as worth any more or less than others. I know this is off-topic, but I would like to know this: If you see two beings in distress, a human and an animal, both facing death and both having the same odds of being saved by you - which would you choose to save and why? Likewise, if the animal in the example above was your best pal, which would you save, your pal or the random stranger? |
| Mr. Wonsworth, you may NOT eat my scones! |
| Oops, sorry, deleted my post for a second 'cause I hate editing. My post above Treekodar said: "That's right, I don't see my life as worth any more or less than others, and I don't see a basis for placing humans on a special pedestal." Treekodar said: If you see two beings in distress, a human and an animal, both facing death and both having the same odds of being saved by you - which would you choose to save and why? I have no idea. Treekodar said: Likewise, if the animal in the example above was your best pal, which would you save, your pal or the random stranger? I'd save my pal. |
Treekodar said: I wonder what people would do if their child was dying, and the only way to save it was to drug an animal. Personally, I'd rather have a million dead animals than a dead son/daughter. Likewise, I'd happily have a a lot of dead humans if it saved my dog. |
| Better them than us. |
 |
Jookia said: Better them than us. better you than me?* |
The Internet is a very bad place, you should never go there. |
LmfaoADoing said: Jookia said: Better them than us. better you than me?* Nah, I'm talking about the human race. |
|
Drunk_Samurai said: Treekodar said: Neiru2012 said: First of all, that's a very biased and unstable state of mind to be making decisions. Second of all, at that rate, why not drug a random human? It'd be more accurate than testing on another species if you want results ASAP. If somebody I loved was sick, and I thought I could find a cure by kidnapping a bunch of healthy humans and testing on them, would that make it okay? What if my kid has whatever your kid has and I thought it'd be most efficient to test on your kid so that my kid can live? The best part of your post is when you equate the life of an animal with that of a human. And just to make it clear: I do not find animals inferior, I just want my own species to survive above all else. All animal rights activists are nuts like that. Eh isn't that just a choice? You can think men or woman are superior, whites, blacks or asians are superior, the whole human race is superior, all cute animals are superior, all animals over a certain intelligence are superior or whatever you feel like thinking is equal, superior or inferior for whatever reason you feel like. What makes all humans equal? For: I wonder what people would do if their child was dying, and the only way to save it was to drug an animal. Personally, I'd rather have a million dead animals than a dead son/daughter. My kid, same as if it was a million humans even though I do believe both are absolutely horrible things to do. If you see two beings in distress, a human and an animal, both facing death and both having the same odds of being saved by you - which would you choose to save and why? If not choosing the human got me into some sort of mess or something then I'd choose them, if not depends on how I feel on the day. Likewise, if the animal in the example above was your best pal, which would you save, your pal or the random stranger? My pal. For the first one as much as I would like to say no I wouldn't if put in the situation I probably would, though I do believe it is very wrong and would never try to argue otherwise. People are naturally selfish and with something as big as your kids life I imagine it would make you do whatever it takes, that's probably when you need to rely on others to stop you from doing horrible things. For the other 2 someone has to die and you can't do nothing as in the other situation (which I believe is the 'right' thing to do) so might as well be selfish. |
| |
Dark_Puddles said: Drunk_Samurai said: Treekodar said: Neiru2012 said: First of all, that's a very biased and unstable state of mind to be making decisions. Second of all, at that rate, why not drug a random human? It'd be more accurate than testing on another species if you want results ASAP. If somebody I loved was sick, and I thought I could find a cure by kidnapping a bunch of healthy humans and testing on them, would that make it okay? What if my kid has whatever your kid has and I thought it'd be most efficient to test on your kid so that my kid can live? The best part of your post is when you equate the life of an animal with that of a human. And just to make it clear: I do not find animals inferior, I just want my own species to survive above all else. All animal rights activists are nuts like that. Eh isn't that just a choice? You can think men or woman are superior, whites, blacks or asians are superior, the whole human race is superior, all cute animals are superior, all animals over a certain intelligence are superior or whatever you feel like thinking is equal, superior or inferior for whatever reason you feel like. What makes all humans equal? Eh, I don't think humans are superior. But I'm more interested on saving a human, because of empathy, reproduction, or whatever many reasons you can get. And anyway, I think your logic lacks consistency. You claim animals and humans are equal, right? Well, let's take this: -Humans and animals are equal. -Animals consume other animals and tend to recognize those of the same species to avoid damaging them (that may not happen but it's a common rule). -So humans consume other animals too, and they tend to protect their species before any other. The fact you say and act with the "humans and dogs are equal" idea is making itself a difference because most if not every else animals' minds don't work like that. You are assuming we are "superior" enough to judge, compare and equal another animal to us. I admit this topic has serious moral issues, as commented before, but I can't agree with that logic that in the end implies a difference in judgement, because dogs won't think you and them are equal. |
| I must say I have no problem with animal testing whatsoever. If humanity can gain something from it... by all means. |
| Whenever you correct someone's grammar just remember that nobody likes you. |
Neiru2012 said: All animals (including humans) share DNA and basic elements of physiology and psychology that result in some universal shared interests: self-preservation, seeking of pleasure, avoidance of pain, etc. This is the foundation of choice, and no matter how elaborate a system of personal preferences we develop, it is just a variation in strategy for pursuing these interests. A psychological foundation for choice. Neiru2012 said: 'Everybody' is questionable, but this isn't a philosophical debate about choice here.Despite these interests being subjective, the fact that they are constant across sentient beings makes them functionally objective. Since everybody agrees on them, protecting these interests serves as a valid baseline for the formulation of morality. Neiru2012 said: Opportunity cost? I'm sorry, I just recognise economic ideas.However, if there is a clash of interests where infringing on the will of others is avoidable or unnecessary, an alternative should be chosen. Neiru2012 said: This is the only argument I see relevant to your view. But then I ask again, why can one being 'own' his/her 'own' life? Does choice make life?I don't think you can have good "quality of life" if your life is being used to test cosmetic products or painful, deadly diseases against your will. It's no longer your life. The problem with the suffering argument is that it simply can be minimised to zero. Arguably, the problem of choice cannot. I think the OP topic would be "Do you support Animal Testing? Why?" and then your argument would be the loss of choice. Suffering is an effect, rather than a reason. Neiru2012 said: Validity, again, depends on one's subjective lens of choice. There's really no point telling me all this, if you are simply painting your own world. I am not exactly interested in the results from looking through your lens, but I would like to find out what lenses you use to derive your results.I think anesthesia is very important to reduce actual pain, and that everything should be done to alleviate the physical sensations of suffering that could result from testing, but these considerations only become valid when it comes to willing participants. Neiru2012 said: Animal testing is taking consciousness away from person B, killing person B if necessary, infecting person B and then testing person B. It is not "infected with the same thing I have and risk your life for my cure." In no way does person B 'suffer' in psychological pain due to a reaction of the nervous system, which is made unresponsive. If you are dealing with unwilling participants, you first have to get past the ethical question of “what gives you the right to usurp somebody else's life at all?” How does it make sense for sick Person A to say "this really sucks, I wish there was a cure," and then turn to a healthy unrelated Person B and say "you should be infected with the same thing I have and risk your life for my cure"? The former is a very important concern, but it doesn't justify the latter. The loss to person B is his choice. This is the root of the string of events. Loss of person B's life comes after. That is an effect. It does not directly answer why or why not. I can discuss philosophy if you want, but it will (necessarily) go nowhere. Neiru2012 said: Although it is related to the self-preservation interest, the connection is very vague: it is not a matter of direct survival or self-defense; the link between the sick person's cure and the person being tested on is very remote due to the unpredictable nature of scientific research; Except 'the sick person' refers to Thousands, Millions, or as Lex Luthor wildly exclaims BILLIONS! Neiru2012 said: it is not a clash of equal interests since the healthy potential test subject's interest in self-preservation is much more certain and immediate. Moreover, alternative courses of action exist. In reality, I hardly see any. Attempting to seek willingness, simply stated, will destroy the point of testing. There is no data to be had. |
「みんながいるからだ。」 － 棗鈴 |
Dark_Puddles said: Eh isn't that just a choice? You can think men or woman are superior, whites, blacks or asians are superior, the whole human race is superior, all cute animals are superior, all animals over a certain intelligence are superior or whatever you feel like thinking is equal, superior or inferior for whatever reason you feel like. What makes all humans equal? That wasn't the point of the post. Neiru2012 thinks that an animal life is the same as a human life. There are even some people who think that animals are superior and deserve more rights than humans. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
271 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |