Is animal testing justified

[suncowiam]

Obviously you have no factual basis by which to conclude that animals suffer any less than human babies. Your assertions are merely an effort to justify gratifying your own desires.

To claim that one agrees with the Golden Rule but tries to justify and is indifferent to the suffering that humans cause to non-human animals is pure hypocrisy, literal hypocrisy.

If you know of any scientific study where the authors concluded from some fact that plants suffer, then cite it. I don't know of any such study, nor any rational reason to conclude that plants suffer. Plants do not have nociception.

That's convenient for you isn't to set aside these formal studies that even suggests plants do feel.

You're whole argument is based on feelings and the golden rule. It's all subjective because we don't share the same ideals even with feelings or the golden rule where concerning animals. There's no way to resolve this. You asked for scientific study to conclude this, but there's no rule even in nature to assert that animals should not suffer when they're being eaten by other animals. It's all purely subjective concerning our stands.

You can't prove me wrong for allowing animals to suffer for the basis of consumption. Go ahead and provide a scientific study.

[Edited]
Don't be fooled in your own assertion that plants don't suffer when you uproot them for your consumption. You asked for scientific studies but you actually have no clue in that assertion. You're best answer is an assumption. Plants just don't have the auditory or muscular system to communicate with you like warm blooded animals. So before you throw around the big bad Hypocrisy word, I suggest you look in the mirror.

 

[Nous]

That's convenient for you isn't to set aside these formal studies that even suggests plants do feel.

I asked you to cite "any scientific study where the authors concluded from some fact that plants suffer". As far as I know, there is no such scientific study.

You're whole argument is based on feelings and the golden rule.

My argument is that to claim that one agrees with the Golden Rule but tries to justify and is indifferent to the suffering that humans cause to non-human animals, such as in factory farms and animal experimentation, is literal hypocrisy.

 

[suncowiam]

I asked you to cite "any scientific study where the authors concluded from some fact that plants suffer". As far as I know, there is no such scientific study.

My argument is that to claim that one agrees with the Golden Rule but tries to justify and is indifferent to the suffering that humans cause to non-human animals, such as in factory farms and animal experimentation, is literal hypocrisy.

[Repeated]
Don't be fooled in your own assertion that plants don't suffer when you uproot them for your consumption. You asked for scientific studies but you actually have no clue in that assertion. You're best answer is an assumption. Plants just don't have the auditory or muscular system to communicate with you like warm blooded animals. So before you throw around the big bad Hypocrisy word, I suggest you look in the mirror.

My assertion is that the golden rule does not apply to non-humans. That is at best subjective. Same with your assertion that it applies to animals but not plants. Your assertion is subjective. If you want to make it objective, then go ahead and prove it with a scientific study.

 

[Nous]

Plants just don't have the auditory or muscular system to communicate with you like warm blooded animals.

Plants also don't have nociception or a central nervous system, which, as far as I know, are necessary for an entity to suffer.

But, again, I asked for a scientific study where the authors concluded from their findings that plants suffer. You haven't cited one yet.

My assertion is that the golden rule does not apply to non-humans.

The Golden Rule doesn't exclude any animal that is able to suffer like any human does. Just the contrary. You pervert what the Golden Rule literally says merely for your own gratifications.

 

[suncowiam]

Plants also don't have nociception or a central nervous system, which, as far as I know, are necessary for an entity to suffer.

But, again, I asked for a scientific study where the authors concluded from their findings that plants suffer. You haven't cited one yet.

The Golden Rule doesn't exclude any animal that is able to suffer like any human does. Just the contrary. You pervert what the Golden Rule literally says merely for your own gratifications.

Go ahead and define the golden rule with links. You're making some very strong claims that you're not even trying to back up.

Concerning eating plants, you're one assertion of eating plants is that they don't suffer. The problem though, is that you are asserting this is true. I can't find a scientific study to even prove this. So maybe you should prove your point here, otherwise the best answer from both of us is that we don't know. The google search if anything keeps on suggesting that plants do suffer, but I'm being fair to your request for a scientific conclusion in that I don't think we can conclude it. You're on pretty shaky ground yourself until you absolutely prove that plants do not suffer. Your assertion of nociception and nervous system is just speculation unless you prove some authority on the matter? Any links?

If not, then you're no better than me but you sure like to denounce others when you're doing the same thing.

 

[Valjean]

Then what are you asserting besides deasserting? We are left with little to no definitions of any morals between animals and humans?

I'll discuss the subject till the cows come home. Ask a question.

I already know the answer: there is no method by which to determine beforehand whether an animal-model experiments will be predictive of results in humans, because, as already noted, animal-model experimentation is not predictive of effects in humans.

I find it disturbing that someone who claims to be a member of PCRM and is familiar with the information at the website would suggest that there is something inherently useful about tormenting animals in laboratories.

Morality and utility are two different things. Mengele's experiments were immoral, but some useful medical information did come from them. We've also gained valuable biological, behavioral and medical information from animal testing, though I agree many experiments proved useless.
There are legitimate issues regarding our use of animals, but I think bolstering our position with easily undermined 'facts' is counterproductive.

I don't consider animals to be like human babies. That's a subjective assertion. I can never place equivalence to animals as I would to humans.

Why? What human qualities entitle us to moral consideration, that cows and chickens lack?

Also, there are emerging information and many articles to suggest that plants do suffer or can feel pain.
Google offers many studies on the subject just by doing a simple search.
Can you refute these articles which suggests formal studies? Are you absolutely sure that plants do not suffer from you eating them?

They sense and react, but we could build a robot that would do the same. Is it actual pain they're reacting to? They have no pain-sensitive nerves, and Nature would be unlikely to evolve a complex and metabolically costly system that's useless to the organism. A threatened or injured plant can't get up and run away, after all.

 

[Valjean]

My assertion is that the golden rule does not apply to non-humans.

Again, what qualities of an organism make the Golden Rule applicable, and are humans the only creatures that possess them?

 

[McBell]

Again, what qualities of an organism make the Golden Rule applicable, and are humans the only creatures that possess them?

Being human and yes

 

[suncowiam]

I'll discuss the subject till the cows come home. Ask a question.
Morality and utility are two different things. Mengele's experiments were immoral, but some useful medical information did come from them. We've also gained valuable biological, behavioral and medical information from animal testing, though I agree many experiments proved useless.
There are legitimate issues regarding our use of animals, but I think bolstering our position with easily undermined 'facts' is counterproductive.
Why? What human qualities entitle us to moral consideration, that cows and chickens lack?
They sense and react, but we could build a robot that would do the same. Is it actual pain they're reacting to? They have no pain-sensitive nerves, and Nature would be unlikely to evolve a complex and metabolically costly system that's useless to the organism. A threatened or injured plant can't get up and run away, after all.

You're differentiating plants and robots to humans. And I'm wrong for differentiating other animals to humans. It's not hard differentiating animals to humans but at this point it seems like it doesn't matter to even try.

You make claims of pain and nerves but why are those the only qualities allowed? How did we objectively come to that conclusion? We have not. All of this is subjective and somewhat abstract. This is fine for the individual but just doesn't work for all society.

 

[Valjean]

Being human and yes

But this is meaningless and circular. "Humans deserve moral consideration cause they're human?" -- that gets us nowhere. Why do humans command moral consideration? Wouldn't it be as valid to say aardvarks deserve moral consideration cause they're aardvarks?
What features entitle one to moral consideration?

You're differentiating plants and robots to humans. And I'm wrong for differentiating other animals to humans. It's not hard differentiating animals to humans but at this point it seems like it doesn't matter to even try.

You make claims of pain and nerves but why are those the only qualities allowed? How did we objectively come to that conclusion? We have not. All of this is subjective and somewhat abstract. This is fine for the individual but just doesn't work for all society.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, or what you mean by "differentiating to."

Things to consider, for example, are capacity for pain or suffering, capacity for pleasure or joy, self-interest and anticipation of futurity.

 

[McBell]

But this is meaningless and circular.

Most man made concepts are.

"Humans deserve moral consideration cause they're human?"

You mean they don't?

-- that gets us nowhere. Why do humans command moral consideration?

Because humans made up the concept?
Why wouldn't humans get moral consideration?

Wouldn't it be as valid to say aardvarks deserve moral consideration cause they're aardvarks?

Did aardvarks come up with the golden rule?

What features entitle one to moral consideration?

I would think being alive should be up there near the top...

 

[Valjean]

Most man made concepts are.

Not so. Google "circular argument."

You mean they don't?

It means your argument is invalid. It's self-referential, circular and irrelevant.

Because humans made up the concept?
Why wouldn't humans get moral consideration?

Couldn't this be extended to include everything humans made up?
Humans would -- but not just because they're human. I could as well ask why squirrels wouldn't get moral consideration.

Did aardvarks come up with the golden rule?

What does that have to do with the issue?

I would think being alive should be up there near the top...

So you'd grant bacteria and slime molds moral consideration?

 

[McBell]

So you'd grant bacteria and slime molds moral consideration?

Where do YOU draw that arbitrary line?
At what point do you toss out the "golden rule"?
Are plants also to get moral consideration?
How about rocks?
Why not?

Seems to me that this is the meat of the issue: Where said arbitrary line is to be drawn.
You obviously draw it at a different place than I draw it.
Some people draw it at race.
Others at humans.
Still others draw it at family pets, except perhaps gold fish, while others draw it after the gold fish, but only their goldfish...

Thing is, it is an arbitrary line subjectively drawn according to each persons whim.

 

[McBell]

Not so. Google "circular argument."

You do that.
after you are done reading up on circular arguments, apply it to man made concepts.
God
religion
ethics
morality
law
Please note that I said most, not all.

It means your argument is invalid.

Except I have not made an argument.
I simply answered a question.
That you wish to use said answer as a springboard for your agenda is on you, not me.

It's self-referential, circular and irrelevant.

Interesting how you do not answer the question.
Rather rude as well.

Couldn't this be extended to include everything humans made up?

of course it would.

Humans would -- but not just because they're human.

What other reason would there be?

I could as well ask why squirrels wouldn't get moral consideration.

Um...
Because some people do not have squirrels on the side of the arbitrary line that gets moral consideration?

 

[Thief]

so...do we shot the pig with antibiotics to see if the chems works?

or do we find some homeless guy for the test?

 

[Aupmanyav]

so...do we shot the pig with antibiotics to see if the chems works? Or do we find some homeless guy for the test?

Homeless guys also have their rights. So, you will need to test with pig or monkey. Then with willing individuals after the chems have been cleared by FDA in US for human testing or the competent authority in any country.

 

[Thief]

Homeless guys also have their rights. So, you will need to test with pig or monkey. Then with willing individuals after the chems have been cleared by FDA in US for human testing or the competent authority in any country.

so...you go first .....when the new chem comes to play...

and the doctor will say.....don't know if this will work
good luck
and oh.....the insurance company has cancelled your insurance

( never said the homeless are deprived of rights.....)

I suppose the poor class could earn big bucks if they are willing to play chem roulette

 

[Aupmanyav]

If they want, perhaps yes.

 

[Valjean]

Mestemia
Thing is, it is an arbitrary line subjectively drawn according to each persons whim.

It is not -- well, maybe it is to you, but some of us prefer to work out what principles apply to a given issue.

Whim, convention, convenience or religious doctrine are usually cop-outs; enjoyed by those who don't want to consider an issue seriously. Try applying principles to the issue.

 

[McBell]

It is not -- well, maybe it is to you, but some of us prefer to work out what principles apply to a given issue.

Whim, convention, convenience or religious doctrine are usually cop-outs; enjoyed by those who don't want to consider an issue seriously. Try applying principles to the issue.

Interesting how you did not answer the question.
That makes twice.
Rather rude.

I understand that you giving a direct answer to that direct question would merely prove my point, but still