Animal rights with regard to testing (moral, experience, moral, science)

[Ori]

I believe animals should be given rights to disable testing on them, some will disagree as it supposedly could create cures to our diseases, but you have to wonder how can we be sure of what would be compatible between an animal and human, given the genetic difference?

[michel]

This is an awful problem; I love animals, and I hate the thought of them being used to test products for our consumption, but that has been the historica legacy -

Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes: Twenty-Five Years of Objective Study of the Higher Nervous Activity Behavior of Animals
by Ivan Petrovitch Pavlov

Great advances in psychology came from Pavlov's experiment on dogs that were horrendously cruel. The 'bell' reflex test.........that led to the learned response theory.
Monkeys were used to work out the possibility of passing electrical currents through probes inserted in the brain, to alleviate symptoms of Parkinson's

When it comes down to the bottom line, if your child was suffering from a disease that might be researched by using animals on which to carry out tests, what would you say ?

It is not clear cut; there are fors and againsts like with everything in life - the secret is to be able to justify, and remain with an easy conscience. Tough call.

[jamaesi]

I'm against animal testing for cosmetic reasons.

As for medical reasons, it's a harder call.

[Druidus]

As Jeremy Bentham, head of the Department of Jurisprudence at Oxford University during the 19th century, said in reference to his belief that animals should be granted moral consideration, "The question is not, ‘Can they reason?’ nor, ‘Can they talk?’ But rather, ‘Can they suffer?’"

If a thing cannot suffer, then it does not matter to that being what happens to it. For example, computers have forms of intelligence (in many ways greater than that of any human), but these machines do not care whether they are turned off or even destroyed.

On the other hand, if a being is able to have subjective experiences of pleasure and pain, then it does matter–to that individual–what happens to it. Irrespective of intelligence, language, etc., a conscious, sentient being has interests in its existence–at the very least to avoid pain and to stay alive. Any complete ethic cannot ignore these concerns.


Testing non-humans is wrong (IMO).

[john313]

I am against it of course. there is a good intention behind it, but i think we should test on people with enough intelligence to decide if they are willing to be tested on. there is no reason to infect, torture, and kill innocent animals. if we figure out a way to communicate with animals on a level high enough to see if they are willing to donate their live bodies to science, then i would be for animal testing on those subjects.
animal testing for cosmetics is just ridiculous.

if your child was suffering from a disease that might be researched by using animals on which to carry out tests, what would you say ?

i know how i would like to answer this, but without being a father it is hard to answer honestly, so i will refrain.

[michel]

I admire your morality - I guess if it was something for my own benefit, then I certainly wouldn't want an animal to suffer - I agree that it is immoral - I just have a feeling that it is a 'necessary' immorality - just as war is...........

If I was seriously ill from an incurable disease, I would volunteer myself for whatever was available, but untested; the problem with that is wether the doctors would be permitted to give me that medication. Knowing beaurocracy, and the fear of litigation, I could imagine them refusing...........

[Seyorni]

The question is. Is it OK to abandon a moral principle when it becomes inexpedient? Even if "you gain the whole world?"

[Jaymes]

Cosmetic testing is a big 'no way' for me. Medical testing is a harder call, though. They suffer, but so do the people with diseases. Is suffering on their part now worth a possible cure in later days?

I couldn't make a decision like that. Both are horrible options, and I'm not sure what the lesser evil is.

[Seyorni]

So why not test on people? The results would be much more reliable and drugs and treatments could be brought to market much more quickly and cheaply -- a clear and positive benefit for society.

There is no shortage of disreputable people we could use for this, and what objections could anyone raise that would not also apply to animals?