Why?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Unfairness angers monkeys
- Thread starter Augustus
- Start date
How is this less of an appeal to emotion than your garden variety (ha, pun) vegan argument? You need meat products about as much as we need control groups of primates for primatology.
Augustus
…
Wild monkeys don't live in some kind of monkey nirvana. They might get torn limb from limb by a chimp or bird of prey, eaten by a snake, catch a painful and debilitating infection or disease, fall out of a tree and break a limb, be rejected by their peers, etc.
A well treated captive monkey probably has a better and longer life than an unsuccessful wild one (of which there are many).
Do you also refuse to use any medication (pretty much all of them) that has been tested on animals? Or are you more about virtue signalling than upholding a genuine ethical principle?
What part of "complex ethical question" led you to believe I was applauding such actions?
And 2nd, are you a vegan? Where do you draw the line on your treatment of living things?
Last edited:
Sure its partly an emotional response on my part, personally think wild animals should be free, not caged. To deliberately antagonise an caged animal is not quite like eating meat unless you prefer your steak stressed and annoyed
Milk involves deliberately impregnating them removing the calf from a cow, causing oodles of stress, for something we don't need. I'm not seeing an inherent difference in why they wouldn't make the same argument against your own activity. Except maybe they would say 'don't cage animals, period, not just wild ones.'
And?
So what meditation is created by peeing off a monkey?
"We have moved away from studying human disease in humans. … We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. … The problem is that [animal testing] hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem. … We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” —Dr. Elias Zerhouni
Not caging animals sounds good to me
Me too. So does Rivendell.
Does this mean you're going to become a vegan? Once again reminding you that killing animals, even humanely, will result in causing them needless suffering so that you can indulge yourself in something you don't need.
Anyway all that aside I think this study provides critical clues in how social species view fairness and how that works into their behavior. Might help us with behavioral psychology for both human and non-human animals.
First an apology, your post somehow got quoted while i was replying to AVM
Second, no I'm not a vegan, where i draw the line has nothing to do with deliberately antagonizing an animal just to see the response.
Augustus
…
It's not like it in that the monkey is unequivocally treated more ethically.
a) Well treated monkey who lives in a social group who gets a little annoyed after being given a less preferred type of food before being returned to her social group where she receives a healthy and balanced diet from people who care about her well being and look after her until the end of her days.
b) Cow manhandled and forced into an industrial processing plant causing great stress before being killed as you want to eat it despite plenty of other options being open to you that would not call for an animal to end its life in misery (even assuming it was ethically treated up to that point and not pumped with growth agents, etc).
I'm going to take it that you do take medicines tested on animals (correct me if I'm wrong). These animals are treated far more unethically.
If you call out others, yet are unwilling to uphold a moral principle when breaking it benefits you directly then it is not a moral principle, just virtue signalling/hypocrisy.
How's that ethically different from 'I draw the line at deliberately killing or caging an animal so I can indulge in something I don't need'?
Also implying that behavioral research is useless? Would it bother you to know we've preformed this same test on human children to compare their behavior to it, or only the non-human animals? What about other behavioral study such as tagging an animal just to see where it'll go, or painting an animal and putting it in front of a mirror just to see if it exhibits self-actualization, or hiding food behind puzzles to see if they can solve it, and on and on?
Not sure about you but i differentiate between deliberate antagonism of a primate (i see as unethical) and essential testing for medical research, noting that the majority of medical research does not require or use animal eating.
Human children, and their patents have a choice and a voice
Tagging an animal to see its movements is not caging and antagonising an animal
Augustus
…
The majority of drugs on the market have been tested on animals. Very rarely do we need to take medicines either, they are usually just to reduce pain or speed up the natural recovery time. You could choose not to use them if you consider it an ethical imperative, but you don't as 'unethical' behaviour is ok when it benefits you directly.
Also she was offered cucumber instead of a grape and his response was like a toddler who gets an apple instead of a chocolate bar. This is hardly gross trauma, and is far less stressful than many situations that she would face in the wild. It is not unnecessary suffering. Also demonstrating the similarities between human and animal though is likely to promote the ethical treatment of animals in the long term, as well as understanding important aspects of human evolutionary psychology.
Animals killed for food suffer far more stress and antagonism, and then they die. They are also generally treated worse during their much shorter lives and this happens on probably 1 million times the scale. This industry you are ok with though, despite it being worse on every single aspect of its ethics. In today's world it is easy enough to live without using animal products, you have a choice.
Again, you accept behaviour you deem unethical in other circumstances because it benefits you directly.
Only in situations when you don't see any direct benefit to yourself do you choose to call out others for their attitude to animal treatment despite justifying worse treatment of animals when it suits you.
Taking a public position of ethical superiority that you are unwilling to accept any personal costs to uphold is not an ethical stance. This is the very essence of virtue signalling, and is highly hypocritical.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
If you didn't comprehend what I said, then just say so. Instead, you seem to be replying as if I get some gratification from animal suffering. Read for comprehension - based on the tone and content of your reply this is my sincere advice to you.
P.S. I AM vegan. And for ethical reasons above any other. Not that this means I am more an authority than you on this topic... but, again, based on the tone and content of your responses, I am inclined to contemplate that possibility.
Human children having a guardian that speaks for them isn't that different from animals with human guardians.
And tagging causes pain, we know animals don't like it as we've seen them deliberately remove them.
Not sure why you're so hung up on caging while ignoring much grosser injustices done to animals than this but w/e.