I consider this an example of societal fuzzy thinking

[West]

The thread on Religion-Psychology got me thinking about other topics that one might feel that a large segment of society doesn't think clearly about. One that jumped to my mind was the use of animals in medical research.

I don't find the torture of mice, rabbits, etc. for the furthering of human medical science to be morally defensible. In my own mind this seems rather obvious, but I assume I am in the minority in my opinion.

What do you think?

[gasgod]

Torture is the deliberate infliction of pain for its own sake. You have already made a moral judgement when you use this term.

Medical research using animals benefits our species, but does not necessarily do so to the detriment of other species. In most cases, the animals would never have existed but for their role in research. If care is taken to treat them humanely, what harm is done?

GG

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Torture is the deliberate infliction of pain for its own sake. You have already made a moral judgement when you use this term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Torture is not defined as deliberately inflicting pain "for it's own sake".

[ QUOTE ]
Medical research using animals benefits our species, but does not necessarily do so to the detriment of other species. In most cases, the animals would never have existed but for their role in research. If care is taken to treat them humanely, what harm is done?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the fact that torturing a particular type of animal for medical research could be done without being a "detriment" to its' species" is relevant. Aliens could snatch you from a corn field tomorrow and perform all the experiments on you they want, and that single act isn't going to affect the human species one iota. Would you therefore consider it moral if it the experiments might be beneficial to the aliens?

Consider a scenario where a higher power created humanity, for whatever reason. In this scenario, we would never have existed except for...whatever reason we were created for. Would you consider it fine for the higher power to occasionally torture humans, so long as it only did so when and as much as "necessary"?

[Bodhi]

Come on now people, he has a point, which is that it sucks to be experimented on. If you don't mind that you're creating the worst case scenario for some other creature, then there's no disagreement.

A friend of mine designed a space-suit while in college. He tested out different suits on mice in a vacuum. A lot of the little critters died and he felt terrible. I think whether you could stomach doing it is more important than a philosophical answer to the question of animal experimentation.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Torture is the deliberate infliction of pain for its own sake.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false when compared to:
The legal definition of torture
The historical use of torture

When you say "done for its own sake" do you mean: Done because the torturer gets pleasure from torturing? Or, done because it is deemed good that the tortured be tortured?

Common sense says that people/animals are most often tortured because the torturer thinks he can obtain something valuable by torturing. It goes the same way whether it's Bush administration rendition or animal experimetnation.

Medicine performed for no medical purpose is (historically) torture. Plastic surgery is a recent exception I think.

[sloth469]

[ QUOTE ]
Aliens could snatch you from a corn field tomorrow and perform all the experiments on you they want, and that single act isn't going to affect the human species one iota. Would you therefore consider it moral if it the experiments might be beneficial to the aliens?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it substantially benefitted the alien species then it would be immoral not to do them.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aliens could snatch you from a corn field tomorrow and perform all the experiments on you they want, and that single act isn't going to affect the human species one iota. Would you therefore consider it moral if it the experiments might be beneficial to the aliens?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If it substantially benefitted the alien species then it would be immoral not to do them.




[/ QUOTE ]

How the hell can you justify this position, if I could survive by killing you and cutting out your heart, would it be immoral for me to let you live? Seems like nonsense to me.

Mack

[fimbulwinter]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

such a logic-less, solipsistic, intellectual failure of an opinion is only possible in a world where modernized nations are overwhelmed by luxuries such as those made possible by animal testing.

fim

[Noo Yawk]

If you could cure diseases that are tortourous ways to die for humans, like cancer, then I could easily condone experimentation on animals.

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.

The real argument you want to make:

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

[Maddog121]

It may be rightly considered by some individuals to be immoral so long as those individuals don't avail themselves of the advances that come from the animal experiments. If you allow yourself access to the treatments, you are paying for the treatments and making it economically feasible to continue the experimentation on the animals. As such, if one holds the viewpoint that it is morally reprehensible to experiment on animals, then it is morally reprehensible to make use of modern medical achievements, including antibiotics, transfusions, chemo, surgical procedures and the like. I suspect that you do avail yourself of medical treatments, or would if you suffered a grevious accident, such as a horrendous car wreck, and as such are taking a somewhat hypocritical stance. I am sure your a nice enough fellow, but I don't see your position as defensible, unless you would accept death in the place of life saving medical procedures. (Maybe the case, but I doubt it.)