I consider this an example of societal fuzzy thinking

[mackthefork]

I guess you are in the US, did you ever hear about the uproar when parents found out Alderhay Childrens Hospital in Liverpool had been stealing parts of their dead kids to study. I doubt most would agree with you, a lot of people still believe in god and all that jazz, and this sort of thing will never sit easy with the church.

Mack

[Roy Munson]

Aliens will not capture anyone from a cornfield tomorrow.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't find the torture of mice, rabbits, etc. for the furthering of human medical science to be morally defensible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not condone the torture of animals. But the fact is, humans are animals also - and in the natural world it is survival of the fittest. If one species can ensure it's survival/prosperity at the expense of a weaker species, then that's what it does. Stronger species have survived by preying on the weak since life on earth began.

If lab mice had the intelligence or ability to conduct experiments on humans that would ensure their survival, they would.

I have a much bigger problem with types of cruelty to animals that are totally useless, specifically hunting for sport. Humans are the only animal that hunts and kills other animals simply for the sport of it. That, I find indefensible.

[aflaba]

You have to weigh the utility of someones suffering.

Would you agree that killing one amoeba to cure 1,000,000 dying suffering people of a desease is morally correct. Yes?

How about a mouse?
How about killing 1,000,000 mice? According to my morals, yes.

Other than the fact that I am a human and therefore naturally have more sympathy with humans than with mice I am also convinced that humans are more consious than mice and therefore in the true sence experience all feelings stronger.

How about killing 1,000,000 mice to invent new make-up? According to my morals, no.

EDIT: I'm not too well read on philosophy, but for those who are interested this is sort of a utalitarian/hedonistic and jakovistic standpoint.

[toots]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't really answer this without becoming offensive to people so I'll refrain, except to say that pretty much every evil action is justified in pretty much the same way, 'being nice never got us anywhere'.

Would I be right to assume you are in the mental health profession toots? this is not a leading question.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Close. I have a PhD in clinical psychology, but never pursued a career in that field, 'cause I discovered on my internship that I hate people so much, it really wouldn't be a good fit.

And yeah, you could well justify a lot of lousy behavior based on what humans have historically done. One of my favorites (or least favorite) is slavery. Most of us agree that it's bad. I certainly do. On the other hand, it's hard to know how far along we'd have come without it.

That's the trouble with all of these issues. We have all arguably benefitted from some really distasteful stuff. Now, we find it comforting to look back on history and pick and choose what was bad or good, but none of us really wants to dial things back to how they were before the sin.

How do I resolve this? I don't. It just bugs me a lot, that's all.

[PairTheBoard]

I think that much of Life is not Black and White but lies in the Grey Area. There are those who are uncomfortable and in denial of this fact of life. They strive mightily to jam all they can into Black and White pidgeonholes. Many adopt "logic" as their religion thinking that will insure their Black and White comfort zone. If they're not careful it can instead make them shut-ins from the mulit-layered multi-colored rainbow of human experience.

What if these experiments were done on humans? They might be even more benificial to the human species as a whole. Do animals deserve the same consideration? Maybe not. But we do have laws against cruelty to animals so we do recognize that animals deserve some consideration. Where DO you draw the line? imo, it's definitely a Grey area of Morality.

PairTheBoard

[West]

Whether or not I'm a hypocrite really has no bearing on whether or not it is immoral to torture animals to advance medical science. I could rightly consider it to be immoral either way.

[West]

I assumed your first reply was just being disingenuous, but it appears that you are serious. As mack was trying to point out, the logic behind your "moral code" can pretty much be used by anybody to justify doing anything to anyone or anything else, if it benefits them in some way. This is the fuzzy thinking I'm talking about.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
What is true is that the conditions necessary to make internet discussions possible were not created by being nice to "lesser" animals. Would it have been possible to get where we are today by being nice to other animals? Don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting back to the original question, I suspect the conditions necessary to make internet discussions possible just might be possible to arrive at without torturing animals in lab experiments. Don't you think?

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
The use of the word "torture" in your post already gives your argument a bias tone. Your really stating that experimenting on animals is torture. Other view experimenting on animals a neccesity to finding new medicines for diseases that cure human suffering.


[/ QUOTE ]

I did not say that all experimenting on animals is torture.

[ QUOTE ]
The real argument you want to make:

Is the use of lab animals as a way to further mankinds medical knowledge justifiable?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's not specific enough. The real argument I want to make is that torturing animals in lab experiments to further mankind's medical knowledge is immoral.