That said, we're making huge strides in computer modeling and the entire debate may be rendered moot. Everyone can no doubt agree that would be a good thing.
Of course reducing the frequency and suffering of animal research is desirable, and indeed that occurs. Animal researchers aren't sadists who enjoy hurting animals, and using words like 'torture' is disingenuous, the suffering of animals in some animal research isn't the aim of animal research, but a regrettable and unavoidable consequence.
This shows staggering ignorance on the prominent and necessary roles animal models play in research. Go on and try to find one drug that has been developed without the use of animal models. You cannot mass-market pharmaceuticals without trying them out first--do you suggest we test new chemicals in their infancy on people? And where will we find these test subjects?
Animal models go far beyond drug testing as well. They play a role in our understanding of endocrinology, genetics, psychology, physiology . . . Biosciences would not exist without them unless we used humans instead. Which is not ideal.
it's pretty easy to crap on the humans in this video - "animal researchers BAD". But this is a burden on ALL of us, whether we're aware or not, or agree or not, about animal testing. We all accept that animals are tested on for things like cosmetics, shampoos, cleaners, medicines - because we STILL use our money to vote for animal testing when we buy these products. If humans decided that this was absolutely unacceptable, we would make it a priority to buy products never tested on animals. Clearly at least some of the researchers in the video are overwhelmingly relieved not to be experimenting on these creatures any longer.
I'm all for science, but I don't think the good outweighs the bad on lab animals. Sure, they enable great discoveries, but we'll get there without them.
Sorry what does a cure for HIV have to do with keeping monkeys in a prison?
You recoil in horror at the thought that we could experiment on humans by locking in them in a cage and infecting them with them with HIV for the sake of science. But you're OK with doing to chimps because, after all, they're not human.
The problem is that the sentience and cognitive abilities of chimpanzees are sometimes *more* sophisticated than many categories of human
Why, if you recoil at the thought of (say) a severely intellectually disabled child being subjected to these experiments, would you not equally recoil at the thought of one of these chimps suffering the same fate? (The answer to this, in my view, is speciesism: the belief that chimps are inherently less worthy of moral consideration solely on account of their species).
Actually, I think it's the definition of ideal. How a drug reacts in a mouse or monkey or pig is not a guarantee of how it will react in a person.
I'd do it if someone could explain the benefit I am supposed to receive and who it is meant to help (I'd also want compensated). Chimps can't tell you how a drug makes them feel. I can.
As dontjumplarry says above, there are easily millions of humans alive today that have far less ability to perform cognitive tasks, recognize other sentient beings, feel empathy, etc than these "animals" that you care nothing about.
If you're saying you care about another being based on what, an ability to fog a mirror and % of DNA its cells share with your cells?, then I'd say the chimps have you beat on empathy as well.
And I don't really care about people that don't care about animals, but even if you want to take your position I can give you hundreds of reasons to care about animals, since without a lot of them you wouldn't be alive.
...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?... The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes...
I'm not interested in "practical, social, [or] emotional" concerns. Just ethical and moral ones. Why do we (as a society)...
Right, because they can't consent to it, and parents wouldn't subject them to such horrific treatment. That's the point: chimps can't consent either but have more cognitive capacity than those same children. But we force them to undergo such treatment in our stead, because we find it too distasteful to subject "our own kind" to.
I'm entirely aware of that. The question that no one will answer is why it is acceptable to force animals -- animals that have greater mental abilities than many humans -- to undergo experimentation, but not acceptable to force those humans to do so.
requires some essential difference in ethical position between members of those species ...
They also don't have as much capacity for ethical reasoning as we do.
What I'm interested in is your clear delineation of "humans" as something apart from "animals". Why is it permissible to experiment on a chimpanzee
"Making sense" implies to me logical consistency, and none of the arguments for doing so that I've heard in this thread are logical. They all reduce to "humans are human and animals are not human, therefore it's permissible to treat (non-human) animals in ways it is not permissible to treat humans."
The first part of the page goes into some detail about how every single category we've ever used to set humans apart from non-human animals has been found to apply to some animals
« Older James Steele: America’s Mystery Man in Iraq -- A 1... | TOKYO GASTRONOMY... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt