- #71
lavalamp
- 279
- 1
I don't know about america but over here we have the RSPCA (Royal Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). If you can't find the american equivalent, you could always donate to that organisation.
Originally posted by lavalamp
If it's going to be used by humans it should be used on humans. I believe that some states have the death penalty in America. Maybe the prisoners should be offered the alternative to be tested on ina potentially fatal experiment. If they live they can go.
Of course testing could be imposed upon them, that would be a real deterent for gun crime.
Originally posted by lavalamp
So am I right in thinking that you think animal testing is OK because it's not as bad as it could be? If you were doing an experiment on an animal and someone said that it was wrong, would your justification be, "Well at least I'm not dismembering it."?
Originally posted by lavalamp
If it's going to be used by humans it should be used on humans. I believe that some states have the death penalty in America. Maybe the prisoners should be offered the alternative to be tested on ina potentially fatal experiment. If they live they can go.
Of course testing could be imposed upon them, that would be a real deterent for gun crime.
Originally posted by lavalamp
While I agree that in certain spcialised cases, a bit of foresight may have prevented a disaster. But if you tested it on mice, then surely they would have been caused great distress as well.
You seem to have picked up the premice that we are above them, and they are inferior to us, just because they are smaller and we keep them locked up in cages.
Well said :)Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
And in my opinion testing drugs on lab animals is a lot more morally justified than, say, eating a hamburger.
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
If I had to choose between a few hundred mice and hundreds to billions of human beings, than yes, I would side with the human beings.
Originally posted by lavalamp
No offence, but it isn't your decision to make. Did anyone ask the mice if they wanted to make that sacrifice, no. Just because they can't answer for themselves does not mean that they have fewer rights than humans.
We are, and they are.Originally posted by lavalamp
You seem to have picked up the premice that we are above them, and they are inferior to us
Try it, lavalamp. Ask one. See what it says. Seriously. Based on the answer you get, you can answer the question you posed above.No offence, but it isn't your decision to make. Did anyone ask the mice if they wanted to make that sacrifice, no. Just because they can't answer for themselves does not mean that they have fewer rights than humans.
They don't, lavalamp. Human rights are human rights. They apply to humans.So you just assume that they don't have the same rights as us and are willing to just go ahead and experiment on them?
You suggested that they should have many of the same rights as humans. The rights of humans are called "human rights."Originally posted by lavalamp
I also don't remember mentioning anything about human rights.
I would of course choose to die peacefully, but that really isn't relevant to this issue. A cow can't ask a mountain lion to make his death as quick and painless as possible.Lat me ask you a question. If you could choose how you would die, would you want to die peacfefully, or by having an electrified metal rod up your arse?
How would you suggest we do it?Just because the food chain is a brutal thing, it doesn't mean that we have to be. If it is neccesary to kill animals, why does it have to be in such a cruel way?
with respectOriginally posted by russ_watters
How would you suggest we do it?
Some religions have rules on animal killing. Like Islam.Originally posted by Monique
with respect
With respect for what exactly?Originally posted by Monique
with respect
I don't know what that means either.Originally posted by Monique
with respect
What rights do animals have and where do they come from?Slaughtering animals or experimenting on them without any respect, without acknowledging that they too have the right to live a decent life, is plain unethical and wrong.
This question precisely gets to the heart of what i was trying to spell out earlier. Human rights are different from any other rights out there, because human rights come from humans, for humans. All other rights are from humans, for other things. Without humans in the first place, there would be no concept of rights.Originally posted by russ_watters
What rights do animals have and where do they come from?
btw, there is a difference between having respect and paying respect.Originally posted by russ_watters
I don't know what that means either.
To an American indian, respect meant praying over the animal after you kill it. For a Jew it means certian ritualistic methods of killing it (and prayer). So is it strictly a religious thing?
Fair enough, but the Indian who prayed over the deer will also say to have respect you have to show (pay) respect.Originally posted by Monique
Russ, respect has nothing to do with rituals or religion, silly idea...
btw, there is a difference between having respect and paying respect.
Sure. As soon as you tell me what that means, how to do that, what animals it applies to, and why. Is it simply a matter of avoiding needless suffering? To me, that has nothing to do with respect and that certainly doesn't apply universally - not to mention its also kinda vague.Could you people at least acknowledge the fact that we should respect animals and avoid needless suffering?
I thought we were here for the sake of the planet, not the human race. Funny that views like this don't fall under racism..Combined, we are a society of animals, working together to further the needs of the community.
The paradox.. what is moral? A moral is something that is socially accepted and makes us feel good, therefore it is a moral obligation to be humane in killing it.There is no inherent moral obligation to be 'Humane' in killing it, but it makes us feeler better about ourselves if we do so.
Hypothetical situation: if were to go out in a spaceship and found a world with a life form, we can just whipe it out without blinking? No, you'll say, we have to bring out our scalpels and cut them open, put the remaining ones in observation and take over the planet, since we are humans and we need to advance. You must've seen startrek.. what is their policy and is it wrong?Sure. As soon as you tell me what that means, how to do that, what animals it applies to, and why. Is it simply a matter of avoiding needless suffering? To me, that has nothing to do with respect and that certainly doesn't apply universally - not to mention its also kinda vague.
And what made you think that?Originally posted by Monique
I thought we were here for the sake of the planet, not the human race. Funny that views like this don't fall under racism..
All things considered equal: Should we kill painfully or painlessly? It would be a moral obligation to kill humanly assuming other people knew of it, otherwise it would be apersonal decision based on whether u 'enjoyed' killing it inhumanely or not. Moral obligation only comes into the picture when other people are present/implicated in the picture.
The paradox.. what is moral? A moral is something that is socially accepted and makes us feel good, therefore it is a moral obligation to be humane in killing it.
What makes u think either of us are accusing them of being 'lower' and not able to be compared to humans? I called humans animals, because we are somewhat equal. The only difference, is that Humans can express their desire to be part of our functional community, and can express their understandings of the rules.
I want to ask both of you: do you live with pets? And no, I am not projecting my feelings upon them.
I'm sure we know how to 'have respect', its just that we don't like the use of the word respect. I don't think it conveys the real relationship at all well. Empathy is a much better word, and we all tend to feel that. As such, we don't like killing animals. It makes us feel terrible. But we only get that feeling when we run over cats, or hit kangaroos, or kill other cute animals. We would hate to kill a dolphin because we can see ourselves in them... etc.
Yes, I understand the need of experimentation on animals, but if you don't know how to have respect for living organisms, you are not entirely human.
Hypothetical situation: if were to go out in a spaceship and found a world with a life form, we can just whipe it out without blinking? No, you'll say, we have to bring out our scalpels and cut them open, put the remaining ones in observation and take over the planet, since we are humans and we need to advance. You must've seen startrek.. what is their policy and is it wrong?
As a scientist, my view on animal testing is that it can be a valuable tool in certain situations, but it should be used sparingly and with the utmost care and consideration for the welfare of the animals involved. While it has contributed to many medical advancements, it should not be the default method for all research and alternative methods should always be explored first.
I believe that there are certain cases where animal testing may be necessary for scientific progress, such as in the development of life-saving medications or treatments. However, I also believe that there are many instances where alternative methods, such as computer simulations or cell cultures, can be just as effective without the use of animals.
I understand and share the concerns about the ethical implications of animal testing. That is why I believe that strict regulations and guidelines should be in place to ensure that animals are treated with the utmost care and respect during testing. Additionally, alternative methods should always be considered and utilized when possible.
While animal testing can provide valuable information, it also has limitations. Animals may not always accurately represent human physiology and responses, and results from animal testing may not always translate to humans. This is why it is important to also use other methods of research and to always interpret animal testing results with caution.
There are ongoing efforts to reduce the use of animals in testing. This includes the development and implementation of alternative methods, as well as stricter regulations and guidelines for the use of animals in research. Additionally, there is a growing movement towards more ethical and humane treatment of animals in testing, with a focus on minimizing pain and suffering as much as possible.