iglak Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 Dr Dalek, Yes, but they are doing the right thing. one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. when the ALF uses arson to shut down a slaughterhouse, they are sending a message to other slaughterhouses that they will continue committing arson until all slaughterhouses shut down. that is a terrorist message, plain and simple. i, personally, can't say whether they are immoral or not based on my morality, because there are many unknowns as to what they are thinking when they are committing the acts. i would assume, though, that they are dehumanizing the building's owners and workers in order to commit the acts. now, as to whether the potential immorality of arson is worth it for stopping the potential immorality of the slaughterhouse, i don't know. there are far too many unknowns for me to think about that.
gcol Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 It seems as if IMM agrees with terrorist acts if the act is in support of her own views. This is an egocentric argumenent at best, naive at second best, and lastly possibly dangerously stupid. I note she advises on ethical investment. Does she consider terrorism ethical? If so, can she define ethical terrorism?
lucaspa Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 They arent inferior in the least. They are the mental and feeling equivalents to certain groups of humans and share many of the most important morally relevant characteristics with them, so they are out moral equals. Then why isn't their behavior "immoral"? They painfully kill other species. BBC News - Animal Drug Testing: Several published studies assessing the prediction of drug side effects by animals have found them to be very poor predictors; correct only 5-25% of the time.[3] 92% of drugs fail in clinical trials, having successfully passed through animal studies.[4] This is a bit misleading. Because it fails to take into account all the drugs that failed in animal testing: either failed in efficacy or failed in safety. The claim is saying that animal testing is "poor" in predicting success in humans. However, it doesn't address the accuracy predicting failure in humans. How many drugs that failed in animals are successful in humans? We don't have those numbers. Why? Because if they fail in animals we never try them in humans. So, in order for a drug to be "successful", we say it has to be efficacious and safe in both animals and humans. Any surprise that very few drugs meet those criteria for multiple species? On the contrary, probably fewer drugs would be developed, or they would be more rigorously tested on human subjects. No, what would happen is that more humans would die as we would fail to eliminate dangerous drugs via animal testing. Well, it systematically undermines all of the common justifications for animal experimentation, such as: "if we didnt test on animals, we'd have to test on people" "animal testing is necessary to cure human diseases" "animal experimentation is save so many human lives" Nope. All those are true. The underlying premise is that, if the treatment doesn't work on animals, it won't possibly work on animals. Now, working on animals doesn't guarantee it will work on humans. Look at my research. We are testing adult stem cells for bone regeneration. If we can't find a way for the cells to regenerate bones in rats, we aren't even going to try them in humans. Would you want us to? However, because of the difference in metabolic rates and absolute (not relative) size of the bone defects between rats and humans, adult stem cells may not be able to regenerate bone in humans. Those kinds of justications wouldnt have any meaning outside of an ethic that says "humans are the center of the universe", because they dont weight the benefit of humans against the harm caused to animals. When it comes to ethics, we are the center of the universe. Ethics are what we determine are how we ought to behave towards other humans. As I've pointed out in other contexts, you don't consider the harm done to other species and neither do any other species. You are quite willing to have the farmer do whatever harm is necessary to rats, mice, voles, etc. in the field when he does his plowing. Or you are quite willing to have people do whatever harm to wolves, deer, rabbits, etc. when they clear woods to make more farmland. You are advocating extending consideration to animals in these particular circumstances. But you cannot base this on some universal regard for animals or universal ethics, because you don't adhere to those universals. IOW, by your behavior you consider the universals to be invalid.
lucaspa Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 Secondly I'd like to say that upon consideration even my "Evolution Based Moral Theory" sugests that animal testing, and many drugs and medical treatment ingeneral are not nesicary.After all a lot of people who medical science wants to save are people who have inherint genetic flaws whose presence will ultimatly weaken our species as a whole, If this is your "evolution based moral theory", then it is flawed because it misrepresents evolution and natural selection. First, you are making the mistake of saying that some traits are absolutely bad. In evolution, you can't do that. Traits are beneficial or harmful only in relation to particular environments. Also, you are saying you are smarter than natural selection and that you have such a complete knowledge of the environment and the future that you can pronounce what is going to be "beneficial" for all time. You don't. Look at Stephen Hawking. He has one of those people who have "inherent genetic flaws" that you don't want to treat. BUT, he also has a superior intelligence. By refusing to treatment to Hawking, the gene pool loses the alleles for intelligence. aslo I know more than a few anecdotes (and perhaps later on some statistics) that show that in many cases medical treatment isn't necisary. One example would be my mother who took medical treatment for an autoimmune disorder that (according to one doctor) easily could have gotten better on its own. She ended up worse off because of some of the drugs she was taking. You do need the statistics. "could ... have gotten better" is not the same as "would have gotten better". Yes, there are medical mistakes, but you need to document that they are approaching 50%. I feel that humans, dispite their higher thinking are still inherintly animal. We are animals. After all, are we classed in a separate Kingdom?
lucaspa Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 Dr Dalek, Yes, but they are doing the right thing. Are they? That is what we are trying to decide. It's not a consensus that what they are doing is "right". Also, considering that some of the animals they have released are incapable of living outside the lab, they are also, in the end, torturing and killing the very animals they say they are trying to "save". Oh, the irony! Bachelors in Finance and Business, associates in Economics, and a specialized degree in technical and fundamental analysis (<--- techniques to predict stock patterns) which I earned as an intern for TD Waterhouse and California College of Business. I earn a living as a professional technical analyst (read that as "stock investor")... ... so if you ever needed a broker, I'm the girl you can count on... but no, they have nothing to do with biomedical research. All this may partially explain why you and I so often have opposite positions. Apparently you haven't had much training in hypothetico-deductive reasoning. Instead, you must learn to deal with the irrationality of investors, who buy and sell for reasons that have nothing to do with the fiscal reality of the company involved.
lucaspa Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 The "mentally similar" humans has a flawed consideration: IMM is comparing human infants to adult animals or comparing mentally intact animals to mentally damaged humans. Apples and oranges. If we compare the capabilities at comparable ages or comparable health, then the argument falls apart. Also, IMM maintains that there is a continuum of "feeling" and "self-awareness" within living organisms. How do you quantify this? How would you tell that a rat is more "self-aware" than a squid? Or a plant? ALL living organisms react to stimuli. It is one of the necessary conditions to be alive. Even unicellular organisms -- such as bacteria -- communicate and act as a group. The amoeba Dictylostelium sometimes self-organizes to reproduce sexually and make a multicelled animal with specialized organisms. It does that in response to certain environments. Is this response "self-awareness"? If not, why not?
Dr. Dalek Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 If this is your "evolution based moral theory", then it is flawed because it misrepresents evolution and natural selection. First, you are making the mistake of saying that some traits are absolutely bad. In evolution, you can't do that. Traits are beneficial or harmful only in relation to particular environments.Also, you are saying you are smarter than natural selection and that you have such a complete knowledge of the environment and the future that you can pronounce what is going to be "beneficial" for all time. You don't. I'm not saying we should go around killing everyone who I deem unfit. Also I did not say that I would be choosing who is unift. I'm saying that maybe we would be better off if we let nature take it's course. Maybe
lucaspa Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 I'm not saying we should go around killing everyone who I deem unfit. Also I did not say that I would be choosing who is unift. I'm saying that maybe we would be better off if we let nature take it's course. Maybe 1. We are letting "nature" take its course. After all, we and our decisions are part of nature! So, our technology is now part of the "environment" under which natural selection works. In this environment some selection pressures are eased. 2. In order to be "better off", someone MUST make the decision about who is unfit. Otherwise the environment (our technology) preserves those individuals. So despite your protests, your position does amount to someone going around and killing people deemed "unfit" -- killing them by witholding the technology to keep them alive. 3. I'm arguing there is no "maybe" about it. Natural selection is much, much smarter than we are. I would rather let it decide who survives in a particular environment -- including an environment where technology preserves what in a different environment would be "unfit".
Dr. Dalek Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 1. We are letting "nature" take its course. After all, we and our decisions are part of nature! So, our technology is now part of the "environment" under which natural selection works. In this environment some selection pressures are eased. 2. In order to be "better off", someone MUST make the decision about who is unfit. Otherwise the environment (our technology) preserves those individuals. So despite your protests, your position does amount to someone going around and killing people deemed "unfit" -- killing them by witholding the technology to keep them alive. 3. I'm arguing there is no "maybe" about it. Natural selection is much, much smarter than we are. I would rather let it decide who survives in a particular environment -- including an environment where technology preserves what in a different environment would be "unfit". Fine, you'll have your ideal and I'll have mine, . . . . I'd rather a few people be let to die. . . . You don't have to believe that, I didn't ask you to. . . . end of discusion.
DaveC426913 Posted September 30, 2006 Posted September 30, 2006 Fine, you'll have your ideal and I'll have mine, . . . . I'd rather a few people be let to die. . . . I wonder if you would feel the same way if it were one of your loved ones. No one wants to mangle the ethics of medicine. But for most people, the life of a loved one trumps ethical convictions.
Dr. Dalek Posted September 30, 2006 Posted September 30, 2006 I wonder if you would feel the same way if it were one of your loved ones. No one wants to mangle the ethics of medicine. But for most people, the life of a loved one trumps ethical convictions. I have no loved ones with major genetic abnormalities, or deficencies. For the most part we are a pretty healthy bunch. A little quirky but healthy. Also I have had loved ones die during my life, and it is sad when it happens, but everything has it's time everyone dies, that shouldn't be changed, and that probably can't be changed. Look if you guys want to continue discusing this I sugest you start a new thred.
bombus Posted October 8, 2006 Posted October 8, 2006 that brings up an excellent other question which i was hesitant to post. why should we not discriminate? in general. if you truly believe that the criminals should be experimented on (the murdering and raping ones), then i can't really touch you. however, what's the limit? what if you were accused of a murder or rape you did not commit, and were put in prison? that happens every once in a while. also, what happens when the criminals adamantly refuse? i suppose you could give them a sedative and restrain them. but that wouldn't be the best scenario, because it wouldn't be as much of a real-life situation for the drugs. the drugs may react differently. but also, what about when the criminal is let go? i know the first thing i would do in that situation is kill everyone around me to survive, and i would struggle endlessly to get out of the restraints and kill my experimentors. this would make for a very dangerous job that many experimentors would not want to do. also, what about drugs that are focusing on a certain demographic or peresonality, or a wide range of them? prisons inmates tend to have very similar personalities and demographics. it would be really hard to test appropriately. so i guess i'll try to answer the discrimination in general question. i'll kill you if you try to kill me. but i don't mind if you simply want me to leave. therefore, in the interrest of staying alive, i would rather not intend to kill or seriously hurt anyone. The thing is, undertaking experiments on living things cannot really be justified in anything other than human terms (obviously). Killing one rabbit to save a million humans is great for the humans, but not so great for that rabbit. Few would think it morally acceptable to kill one human to save a million rabbits! All animal experiments are 'immoral' in my opinion, it's just that sometimes we want to do things that are 'immoral' because we like the results. I don't class humans as intrinsically more important than any other form of life, so bearing that in mind, if I was given the choice of undertaking a potentially dangerous experiment on say, a dog, or on some unpitying selfish bastard who doesn't give a sh*t about anyone then the dog would go free! Simple as that. In reality (whatever that is) doing experiments on convicts would pose many problems, most of which you have pointed out, but in principle I think it is more acceptable than experiments on animals. They could repay their debts to society by offering to undertake tests! Also, when one considers the eye drop test done with rabbits, surely that would be better done on humans who can at least understand the concept of what is happening to them and why it is happening, and can also say Ow that hurts! I can't imagine the suffering those poor rabbits go through - with absolutely no knowledge of why this awful thing is happening to them - its gruesome and evil! However, all this said, it rather depends what the experiment is. Chimps can enjoy psychology tests as much as humans do! I see nothing really that wrong with rats in maze tests, or even the ear on the back of the mouse thing. So long as their is no suffering its OK by me, but it still can't really be 'morally' justified.
ParanoiA Posted October 14, 2006 Posted October 14, 2006 Ok, maybe I've got my rose colored glasses on, but how badly do humans really treat animals? With the exception of careless slaughter through habitat invasion, how bad do we really treat animals in direct contact? I was watching a documentary on lions the other night. They followed a pride that hunted buffalo exclusively. They follow these herds constantly, day after day, picking at them and when they get one, it's a long cruel death as they tear and bite and rip into them, indifferent to the moaning and suffering coming from the buffalo. This is similar to most predator/prey relationships, as it's usually something being eaten by something else which is usually indifferent to its feelings on the matter. We don't treat animals like that. Even the ones that do treat other animals like that. Most animals that we murder are done by hunters or slaughter houses, which means a bullet or decapitation - either way a quick death, usually completely unaware. I know we murder animals for profit, but I think we kill really nice. As far as animal testing goes, how much of it compares to the stress of a lifetime of scouring for food, while being trailed and hunted by a hungry predator, only to die a long horrific death? And doesn't some of the testing ultimately benefit other animals as well? What if we ultimately help exponentially more than we hurt considering the quality of life for all in the future?
gcol Posted October 14, 2006 Posted October 14, 2006 The question is indeed a moral dilemma. On the one hand we have the high moral stance of St. Francis of Assissi and some Eastern religions that would not tread even on an ant, and those of us struggling with the compromises that the real world demands. Assuming that most of us eschew the two opposites, that leaves us to wrestle in the mud of the middle ground and we end up by arguing over moral niceties. I fear that a point of universal agreement will never be reached. If it is however in one lifetime, it will surely change in the next. The balance of opinion forever shifting. Reasonable people should hold strongly to the middle ground, and fight against the extremes with equal vigour. For me, that is where this discussion ends.
Dr. Dalek Posted October 14, 2006 Posted October 14, 2006 I don't think moral questions can ever be answered in a way that is true for a society, only for individuals.
In My Memory Posted October 15, 2006 Posted October 15, 2006 Probably others noticed, but I stopped participating in the thread because lucaspas comments that I "haven't had much training in hypothetico-deductive reasoning" when he doesnt know anything about my educational history were extremely offensive. And more to the point, I replied to all of lucaspas questions earlier in the thread, but he just asked them again, and I will usually lose interest in going in a circle. But in any case, I feel like joining the thread again... gcol, It seems as if IMM agrees with terrorist acts if the act is in support of her own views. This is an egocentric argumenent at best, naive at second best, and lastly possibly dangerously stupid. I note she advises on ethical investment. Does she consider terrorism ethical? If so, can she define ethical terrorism? Really, do you want me to godwin this thread to death But in any case, I bet 99% of people will defend acts of terrorism given severe enough circumstances. For example, if the government began rounding up all Christians or all non-Christians for extermination, then a lot of people would fight the government with violence to get them to stop. Is opposing the government in that way terrorism? Yes... ...but terrorism isnt intrinsically wrong, the wrongness of terrorism is circumstantial based on how it affects others. Most acts of terrorism like are wrong because they cause so much harm to achieve nothing, and most acts of terrorism are justified by nothing. Protecting innocent people from gratuitous harm is a way to justify violence against the government, but saying "my god approves of this..." is not a justification because gods will is fundamentally unknowable and all conceptions of god are manmade fictions. lucaspa, They arent inferior in the least. They are the mental and feeling equivalents to certain groups of humans and share many of the most important morally relevant characteristics with them' date=' so they are out moral equals.[/quote']Then why isn't their behavior "immoral"? They painfully kill other species. Specifically speaking, they cant purposefully behave immorally because they arent rational beings and arent capable of taking responsibility for their actions, so they cant take blame or praise for their actions and they cant be criticized in a profound sense even if they cause harm. Thats why a piece of machinery that malfunctions isnt the subject of moral blame, neither is the sun the subject of moral blame when it causes skin cancer, neither are infants the subjects of moral blame, so the actions of those things and objects arent "immoral" per se. But in any case, I get asked a lot "what about animals in the wild? should we just let them keep killing each other?"... but 100% of the time, the person who asks that questions doesnt have a plan about what we could do to prevent predation in the wild. From the point of view of a utilitarian, which I'm fairly partial to, I think it would be ideal if we could end all predation --- but how is that idealization even remotely achievable? Even with all the resources we have, we just cant police the billion of acres land and billions of liters of ocean and police all of the ecosystems for even a second. Its not that we shouldnt police nature, but its that we cant because of our physical limitations. And with the record of huge ecological disasters we've created by trying to dominate nature, I think we would fail on a monumental scale if we even attempted to police all the ecosystems on the globe, and I think its very likely that we'll contribute to more harm than if we'd never interfered in the first place. For the time being, we cant address the issue of wild predation in a grand scale; at most, we can only address the behaviors of the animals in our care, such as prevent our dogs from tearing up cats or mauling kids, and preventing our cats from killing from eating mice and rabbits. We cant even begin to address the predation that occurs in African savannahs or the rainforest due to our limitations, but we are at least able to control our own behavior, and we should minimize the harm that we cause no matter what other animals are doing in the wild. When you asked the question the first time, I said: IMM: "Now, if your ethics are not just special pleading, then the idea of "no species barrier" must apply to all species, not just humans. But wolves kill members of other species every day. Why is this not wrong?" I've never said it was wrong, and I do think the principles of human apply to other creatures, including wolves (although I wouldnt fault wolves in the same way I'd fault humans for killing other animals, because wolves arent capable of making moral decisions). I'd like to live in a world where no one ever killed other species for their own gain... ... but you can see how thats such an idealist world that it isnt even remotely achievable, at least not right now. The globe is so many millions and millions of square miles (on land and in oceans) and there are so many billions and billions of ecosystems, and there are only a limited number of human resources that cannot (even with the wildest optimistic expectations) be spread over the entire globe to police the whole of wildlife. So even though it would be ideal for us to stop all predation, how could we? We just dont have the remotest capacity to police nature, and so we cant be held accountable for not policing it more than we already do. However, at the very least, we are rational being who can make ethical decisions about our diet and choose to minimize the harm we cause, so we are obligated to do that no matter what other animals are doing for themselves. You see how that reply from page 2 in the thread is identical to the reply in page 5? Instead of taking in consideration the actual limitations of resources that prevent humans from policing the globe, you restated your question as if it were some brand new profound epiphany. When it comes to ethics, we are the center of the universe. Ethics are what we determine are how we ought to behave towards other humans. One of the reasons why I stopped participating in this thread was due to replying to the same comments over and over again. You made the same comment on page two, and I replied to it as follows: IMM: "Ethics and morals are what we decide applies to our species." lets just say I took what you said at face value, and agreed that morals are we decide they are; I can still make an argument for animal rights very easily, because even if morals are human-created fictions, we have to insist on taking out moral claims to their logical ends and being consistent with them. Otherwise, if we have no expectation that people will be consistent in their actions, morality (as a human invention) cant serve its purpose and theres no rational constraint on any action. I'm sure you agree with that much... ...now, you can probably see where an animal rights ethic can be built from two accepted basis: 1) taking the moral principles we hold true for humans to their logical ends, so that our humanistic principles are truly universalized. 2) If we dont universalize our ethics, then its the same as not applying them at all, because then we wouldnt have an argument against hypocrisy when someone says one thing and does another (such as saying "human life has intrinsic value" and then killing people anyway). So if someone says "its wrong to make innocent people suffer", then they're bound to universalize that ethic into the animal world and take it to its logical ends. A point has to be made that when people object to human suffering, their objecting the nature and elements embodied by "human suffering", which effectively seperates the experience of suffering from the experiencer. On universalizing their ethics, a claim can be made that animals have such similar sense organs and processing facilities that their suffering embodies the same elements as human suffering, so that an objection to human suffering is fundamentally inclusive to animals suffering as well (*). Because we're bound to be consistent in our actions, we're bound not to cause suffering to innocent animals; if we go around torturing animals, then we're not being consistent, and we have no objections to someone torturing us. Instead of replying to my comments that the consideration of animals rights follows from the application of our own manmade morality to their logical ends, you restated yourself again, which is a waste of time. As I've pointed out in other contexts, you don't consider the harm done to other species and neither do any other species. You are quite willing to have the farmer do whatever harm is necessary to rats, mice, voles, etc. in the field when he does his plowing. Or you are quite willing to have people do whatever harm to wolves, deer, rabbits, etc. when they clear woods to make more farmland. I noticed when I replied to this very same comment on page 1, you either missed my reply or ignored it, but here it is again: IMM: "you have no problems destroying habitat of animals for farmland to grow the food you need to survive!" Nonsense. Not only do we have no rational alternatives to producing food outside of farmland, but the deaths that result from farmland are incidental, not intended, and cannot be conflated with one another. Your comments are a word game at best, and the rhetoric behind them is identical to the following: you say that its wrong for people to kill members of their own species, but you have no problems with people driving on roads and killing each other in accidents everyday, you hypocrite!!!!!! In my ideal world, we might take on farming like this: - teams of people would scour through farmland picking up and relocating animals. - or better yet, the government would give every family its own green house, or give neighborhoods a slightly larger greenhouse, where vegetables could be grown for everyone in local organic gardens. At least this way, farmland is fenced off, roofed, and harvested by hand so that animals arent hurt in the process. What more can I possibly say? That you're not being rational by "refuting" veganism on the basis that incidental harm is equal to intentional killing without applying that same standard to your own behavior? I think I've said all that I can, but when you just parrot yourself, we dont get anywhere. I understand that you have 3 or 4 "stumpers" in your pocket, (like "animals kill other animals, why houldnt I?", "isnt morality made by people for people?", and "but farming kills too!") but you just arent very good at defending your claims. I get the feeling its because you heard the claims from maddox or other sources and thought they sounded good, so then you started using them without even thinking them through or fleshing out the moral principles behind them... so in the end, after you parrot your stumpers, you dont have any further defense of them except to parrot them again as if they suddenly become more poignant (or to "win" an argument by getting the last word). And for that reason, I took a lot of offense to your comment that: Bachelors in Finance and Business' date=' associates in Economics, and a specialized degree in technical and fundamental analysis (<--- techniques to predict stock patterns) which I earned as an intern for TD Waterhouse and California College of Business. I earn a living as a professional technical analyst (read that as "stock investor")... ... so if you ever needed a broker, I'm the girl you can count on... but no, they have nothing to do with biomedical research.[/quote'] All this may partially explain why you and I so often have opposite positions. Apparently you haven't had much training in hypothetico-deductive reasoning. Instead, you must learn to deal with the irrationality of investors, who buy and sell for reasons that have nothing to do with the fiscal reality of the company involved. Not only have your comments really really been academically subpar (in the sense that you never develop your arguments, state the principles your using to justify experimentation, state many moral conclusions categorically without justifying them, and do not carry any implied principles to their logical ends), but you dont even know my background education. Instead, you took a potshot at me, at the same time you chose to reply to the least interesting comment in the thread without even glancing at my earlier and more prudent replies... that speaks volumes to me about your intellectual integrity. The "mentally similar" humans has a flawed consideration: IMM is comparing human infants to adult animals or comparing mentally intact animals to mentally damaged humans. Apples and oranges. If we compare the capabilities at comparable ages or comparable health, then the argument falls apart. I dont think you understand my point: because many morally relevant characteristics are indelibly connected to a beings mental and feeling characteristics, then two beings with similar mental and feeling characteristics will have similar moral charcteristics. If you list off some of the moral characteristics that make a being valuable, such as having a capacity to feel pain, practice moral reciprocity, pursue longterm goals, contribute to society, then almost certainly you can see that those characteristics are almost direct statements about the beings particular mental and feeling characteristics. I can imagine that age and health might have indirect moral conquences, but the relevance of those would reduce down to how they affect a beings mental and feeling capacities. Because you didnt understand what my comparison implied when you deduced your criticism, and as has been consistently the case, you havent actually shown that anything I've said is flawed at all. For a person who experiments on animals, and for someone who'd I'd expected to have thought about the morality of animal experimentation tremendously, your comments criticism of animals rights is infantile. I dont mean that just to take a cheap shot -- I've come across a lot of people who ask questions about animal rights, and some are actually thoughtful and interesting, and others come off as complete idiots. Your comments in this thread have been the least intellectually stimulating of any anti-animal rights arguments I've ever read (and believe me, I've seen them all), and for someone who is a vivisectionist, you dont have a coherent justification for your practice. Paranoia, Ok' date=' maybe I've got my rose colored glasses on, but how badly do humans really treat animals? With the exception of careless slaughter through habitat invasion, how bad do we really treat animals in direct contact? I was watching a documentary on lions the other night. They followed a pride that hunted buffalo exclusively. They follow these herds constantly, day after day, picking at them and when they get one, it's a long cruel death as they tear and bite and rip into them, indifferent to the moaning and suffering coming from the buffalo. This is similar to most predator/prey relationships, as it's usually something being eaten by something else which is usually indifferent to its feelings on the matter. We don't treat animals like that. Even the ones that do treat other animals like that. Most animals that we murder are done by hunters or slaughter houses, which means a bullet or decapitation - either way a quick death, usually completely unaware. I know we murder animals for profit, but I think we kill really nice.[/quote'] Its reaaaaaly obvious you've never read anything on the subject. As for how we kill animals in experimentation, here are some experiments I collected from Pubmed: http://juliet.php0h.com/rubrique.php?id_rubrique=5 You can judge the cruelty for yourself. And as for animal slaughter, let me put it this way: the whole world would rise up and destroy any industry which treated mentally similar humans in the same way that animals are treated in the slaughterhouse (actually, in retrospect, I dont really know if thats true, because a lot of people have no problem buying products manufactured from communist sweatshops and from countries with a history of human rights abuses). Peter Singers book Animal Liberation is a good place to start. And if you dont mind the obvious slant and largely emotional appeals, you can take a look at ChickenIndustry.com, FactoryFarming.com, and Meet Your Meat. The links above use a lot of emotion, but their description of factory farms is essentially accurate: animals are bred for slaughter, and for their whole lives many animals are confined in long rows of cages too small for them to even turn around or move at all. The factories are very dirty, and the amount of animal waste created means an incredibly vile, unsanitary, and diseased atmosphere that would usually kill the animals; but, to combat the disease, animals are pumped full of hormones and steroids to produce growth and prevent the animals from dying. In the US in particular, the conditions on factory farms are incredibly low, and in fact they dont meet the minimum requirements of sanitation that Canada and the UK uses, and it would be illegal for any Canadian or UKian farm to operate on US standards. - For egg factories in particular, 9 to 12 chickens are crammed in tiny cages (usually less than 20 inches wide x 9 inches high), and thousands and thousands of cages are stacked in rows on top of each other. The bottoms of the cages are a wire mesh to allow droppings to fall through the cage (on top of any chickens below) rather than pile up, and very often the mesh is too widely spaced that chickens' legs will fall through the holes and they'll be trapped and be unable to move (and they starve to death). Everyday, one or two people checks the cages for dead chickens to remove them and dispose of them. Additionally, chickens are an instinctually social creature, and they form hierarchial social groups based on a pecking order (i.e. dominating others), but because there are 1000x more chickens in the group than what they'd ever see in the wild, they will literally peck each other to death; and when the chickens get blood on each other, the others percieve the blood as a weakness and will peck the bloodstained chicken to death (where more blood is spilled on more chickens and the cycle repeats). There are cases where thousands of and thousands of chickens will kill each other in a few hours... to combat this problem, when chicks are born, they are put in a kind of vicelike device with a blade that debeaks the chickens, which is a painful process because the beak has a huge supply of blood and nerves (as its the most valuable organ to the chicken), then the bloody numbs are cauterized by pressing them against a redhot sheet of metal. Only female chicks endure that process, because male chicks cant lay eggs, so they are usually thrown away and suffocated in a bag. Finally, to make the egg factories the most profitable, the chickens are fed massive doses of steroids to make them lay eggs at 6 to 10x their natural rate. Usually a chicken will lay an egg or two a day, but a chicken in a factory farm will lay 20 or more. This is a very stressful process for the chicken, because the eggs pull a lot of calcium and protein out of the chickens bodies; when a natural chicken has a lifespan of about 5 or 6 years, a factory farm chicken usually doesnt live past 5 or 6 months before they are "spent". Even though the superfast egg laying process is profitable, if you think about it from a health point of view, the eggs from factory farms are much less nutritionally valuable, because they are produced so quickly that nutrients arent desposited into the egg. (Its not really even possible for nutrients to get into the egg, because chicken feed has very little nutritional value, its composed of the remains of "spent" chickens, newspaper dust, and small amounts of grain.) Something I learned from vivisectionists is that, due to the hormones and steroids, they cant use eggs that come from factory farms because they are just too low quality. Most vivisectionists get their eggs from small Amish farms, who let their chickens run around and lay eggs at their natural rate, and the Amish eggs are much higher quality. - For cows and pigs, their lives are spent in pens that confine their movement almost entirely. They are confined like this because it makes their flesh more tender, and it prevents potential profit from being burned off. For dairy cows, they will only produce milk when they give give birth to an infant (just like all mammals do), so dairy cows spend their entire lives in one of two conditions: hooked to machines which drain milk from them, or temporarily unhooked from the machine to give birth. When dairy calfs are born, they are usually seperated from their mother with 0 to 24 hours of birth; if the dairy calf is a female, its raised in a pen to fatten up so it can fatten up and make babies of its own, and male calves are sold as veal. Veal calves live very short lives: they are confined in stalls where they are unable to move or even stand up, and they are fed an iron deficient diet (which is a liquid gruel composed of wood ash and cows blood) in order to give their flesh a distinctive pale appearence.(On the subject of feeding calves the blood of other cows, mad cow disease is transmitted when an infected cow is ground up and fed to other cows.) Contrary to the popular notion that cows are thoughtless animals which have no purpose except to produce meat, they are actually very social animals and have complex social lives, and they will actually become visibly upset and ill when seperated from their calf. Like the chickens, most dairy cows never see sunlight, and the factories are so unsanitary that they have to be pumped full of steroids to keep them alive just long enough that they make a profit. Of course, its interesting that many of the hormones given to US cattle are banned in Canada and the UK, which led to a ban on (some) US beef imports into the UK from '96 onward (I'm not sure if the ban is still in place, but this source states that its banned US beef all the way into '04). The hormones where intially banned because they were a danger to human health. Of course, the slaughter process isnt as painless as you think it is. One of my co-workers used to work at a slaughterhouse, and he was a "knocker", which basically meant he smashed the animals on the head with a hydrolic hammer (or a type of gun) to stun them. Additionally, the hammer device that is used to stun the animals doesnt always work on the first try, it can take 3 or 4 knocks with the device before the animals is finally unconscious, but if the animal resists going down or the line is moving too fast, the animal will be shackled upside down by the leg whether its unconscious or not. He describes that a lot of times, animals arent killed correctly, so they will be hung on hooks while still screaming and squealing before they are disemboweled by a machine, fed into grinding devices, skinned, or submerged in scalding tanks while they're still alive. And as a result, he became a vegetarian for 10 years. But still I havent even mentioned a fraction of the harm caused by animal factories, such as the pain caused by branding or the horrible conditions that animals are put through when they are transported on large trucks (about 5% die during that process). Something that you have to keep in mind, 10 billion animals are slaughtered in factories everyday and the governments protect the factories. I wonder everyday what kind of person would voluntarily participate in the operation of those factories, or why they would buy factory meat? Then I remember that they dont see feeling beings in a completely tortured existenc who will be slaughtered and cut into pieces, they see colorful labels on food that completely seperate them from knowing about the factory farm. One of the most disappointing things that I come across all the time is this: whenever I mention the suffering in factory farms, someone always says "dont talk about that, I dont want to know about it or I'll start feeling guilty lol"... And doesn't some of the testing ultimately benefit other animals as well? What if we ultimately help exponentially more than we hurt considering the quality of life for all in the future? Its hard then to see how that argument doesnt also justify human experimentation (after all, why not cut up one person to harvest his blood and organs to save potentially 10 others), but I'll let Henry Salt reply to that: If there be one bright spot' date=' one refreshing oasis, in the discussion of this dreary subject [animal experimentation'], it is the humorous recurrence of the old threadbare fallacy of '' better for the animals themselves.'' Yes, even here, in the laboratory of the vivisector, amidst the baking and sawing and dissection, we are sometimes met by that familiar friend—the proud plea of a single-hearted regard for the interests of the suffering animals ! Who knows but what some beneficent experimentalist, if only he be permitted to cut up a sufficient number of victims, may discover some potent remedy for all the lamented ills of the animal as well as of the human creation ? Can we doubt that the victims themselves, if once they could realize the noble object of their martyrdom, would vie with each other in rushing eagerly on the knife ? The only marvel is that, where the cause is so meritorious, no human volunteer has as yet come forward to die under the hands of the vivisector ! It is fully admitted that experiments on men would be far more valuable and conclusive than experiments on animals; yet scientists usually disavow any wish to revive these practices, and indignantly deny the rumours, occasionally circulated, that the poorer patients in hospitals are the subjects of such anatomical curiosity. Now here, it will be observed, in the case of men, the moral aspect of vivisection is admitted by the scientist as a matter of course, yet in the case of animals it is allowed no weight whatever ! How can this strange inconsistency be justified, unless on the assumption that men have rights, but animals have no rights—in other words, that animals are mere things, possessed of no purpose, and no claim on the justice and forbearance of the community ?
Skye Posted October 15, 2006 Posted October 15, 2006 IMM I wonder why you feel that animal behaviour indicates that they suffer but at the same time you don't think they have a sense of ethics. I think on the face of it they seem to show both responses to noxious stimuli and a sense of societal rules that are analogous to humans. Whether either of these things have parallels with a conscious suffering or a system of ethics is debateable. Indeed the links between noxious stimuli and pain, and social behaviour and abstract ethics, are tenuous enough in humans. But the same sense of empathy for animals suffering would seem to apply to animals knowledge of right and wrong.
Technocrat Posted October 22, 2006 Posted October 22, 2006 Just because something doesn't have the capacity to reason doesn't mean it cannot suffer. Suffering is a vague term, but it's not one that's relegated to creatures that are highly self-aware or rational. You can suffer on many levels. Creatures with higher levels of intelligence and self-awareness ought to be able to suffer more due to foreboding and understanding of the pain. It creates different types of preference. Many animals without the required intelligence cannot be held morally culpable for their transgressions anymore than retarded people can, especially as the retarded slip down the slope to increasing levels of mental degeneration. You cannot be willfully immoral or making an immoral choice if you can't comprehend the concept. Moral judgement as an agent requires rational volition. Suffering of any type doesn't. I really have no problem with animal testing because it is necessary for preventing significant human as well as animal suffering, but I also take morality from a Utilitarian standpoint. There are too many benefits both to Humans and non-human animals to get rid of experimentation, especially for medicine. It helps prevent a lot of suffering and increase the quality of life in medicine and veterinary science. Human interests also diverge from many animal interests due to the mental capacity of Humans vs other animals; they don't necessarily have the same interests as other animals, nor do they have the same capacity for suffering. We ought to treat creatures equally wherein they are actually equal or roughly equal. Even if one considers the principle of equality of interests, this doesn't mean Humans ought to be treated equally with other animals in all regards; equality doesn't imply equal treatment across the board regardless of actual differences. However, the only differences than ought to matter are matters of utility; pain, pleasure, and welfare preference satisfaction. The idea ought to be to minimize unnecessary harm to all involved. While it is true that human toddlers are smarter, already, than most other animals, that doesn't mean their interests should always trump the interests of other animals. In most cases, it probably would, but not always. It depends on their capacity to form and access preferences, be happy, suffer, feel pain, etc. It's rather absurd and completely unsubstantiated that ethics ought only apply to Humans' ethics isn't intrinsically directed only at the conduct of Humans toward other Humans. That would not only be arbitrary discrimination, but also would allow anything to be done to non-humans purely at the caprice of Humans, regardless of the actual similarity to Humans, intelligent, or capacity for suffering. That's morbid and bankrupt ethics. There's nothing special about Humans that could justify propping them up above all else, regardless of the characteristics of "all else." If there were indeed aliens with similar mental capacity and feeling capacity, they ought to be treated with equal consideration of their welfare interests whether they are Human or not. Ethics requires universalization and equality of interest consideration of like interests. Ethics which only revolve around Humans increase needless suffering and would necessarily justify the most henious action against another animal for any type of benefit accrued. Like to kick puppies and slowly ram nails into them? It's ok! Because ethics only applies Human to Human! On that note, I would like to comment on PeTA and ALF. The latter really is a terrorist organization, and since learning about that, I no longer fund it. They are wrong. Humans are animals too, and they deserve moral treatment. Violence also rarely solves the problem; it often makes it worse and helps the movement backfire. They represent the wacky branch of animal welfare movements. Not all are like that. PeTA is crazy in a non-terrorist way. They go overboard, and they are often hypocritical, killing tonnes of animals anyway. I don't support them either. Both of these organizations make the movement look bad. I really don't believe in Animal Rights, since I am a Utilitarian as well; animals don't have rights. Neither does the Human animal, except for legal ones. Rights are protections of key welfare interests. They don't exist intrinsically. In that case, rights can be used as a social rule of thumb to promote social utility by protecting key welfare interest. Doing that usually makes people happy and increases social functioning. Edit: It's not even necessarily immoral to kill all animals. It would rather depend on their nature. Are they capable of understanding they exist and forming a desire or preference for continued life? If not, then if you kill it, can you replace it with another which will have a similar life or one with a better life? Both of those considerations matter. It might be the case that you can STILL farm and kill animals as long as you replace them with animals which will have a happy life similar to or greater than the one killed. In that case, you can benefit Humans. The key is that you try to give the farm animal some semblence of quality life, happiness while they live prior to slaughter. If you kill them, you replace them and maintain the utility pool. If they are not self-aware creatures that can form complex, but different goals, desires, preferences, they are relatively replaceable utility recepticals, like fetuses.
In My Memory Posted October 22, 2006 Posted October 22, 2006 Technocrat, I really have no problem with animal testing because it is necessary for preventing significant human as well as animal suffering, but I also take morality from a Utilitarian standpoint. There are too many benefits both to Humans and non-human animals to get rid of experimentation, especially for medicine. It helps prevent a lot of suffering and increase the quality of life in medicine and veterinary science. Human interests also diverge from many animal interests due to the mental capacity of Humans vs other animals; they don't necessarily have the same interests as other animals, nor do they have the same capacity for suffering. We ought to treat creatures equally wherein they are actually equal or roughly equal. Even if one considers the principle of equality of interests, this doesn't mean Humans ought to be treated equally with other animals in all regards; equality doesn't imply equal treatment across the board regardless of actual differences. However, the only differences than ought to matter are matters of utility; pain, pleasure, and welfare preference satisfaction. The idea ought to be to minimize unnecessary harm to all involved. You've probably noticed my ethics are heavily utilitarian also, and they are very similar to the Peter Singer's Preference Utilitarianism (I know for a fact that you're familiar with him, because you use a lot of direct quotes from him in your post). But Singer argues that animal experimentation is wrong on the basis that it results in a lopsided utlitarian calculation: the benefit to humans is too small and trivial next to the harm caused to animal. For example, a huge percetange of research goes into cosmetics testing (and cosmetics are not necessary to protect human life) and psychological research (which doesnt save lives at all). The fact that humans are not willing to sacrifice human infants for experimentation to save other human an animal lives gives away the lopsidedness of the calculation. They believe that 1000s of animals are worth sacrificing to save one infant, but it would be morally evil to sacrifice 1 infant on behalf of 1000s of animals... the only explanation behind that contradiction is that people just have an irrational prejudice against animals interests, they just dont care, and so (by the implications of utilitarianism) they are contributing to a huge amount of gratuitous and unjustified harm. Psychological and cosmetics testing are expendable, the only kind of experimentation that requires consideration is medical testing that saves lives (which happens to exclude testing for non-lifesaving pills like Viagra and OTCs). Of course, with respect to utilitarianism, no one believes that a life destroyed is equal to a life saved (or a new life created in its place). Here are just a few simple examples to demonstrate this point: - Most people believe that its wrong to kill one innocent human even if harvesting his blood and organs saves the lives of 10 others. So at the very least, killing 1 person is worse than failing to save 10 others. This implies that taking life and being unable to save it are not morally the same, willfully killing innocents is worse than being unable to save innocents. - No one believes that a woman could kill a person even if she promised to bring another person into existence. Although from classical utilitarian point of view, there isnt much difference in the amount of happiness in the universe before the murder than there is after the woman gives birth, yet the woman's behaviors were morally objectionable. This implies that taking life isnt justified in an obvious sense just by saving another or bringing more lives into existence. If the woman doesnt kill anyone, then she hasnt harmed anyone; even if she never brings another human into the world, the net utility in the universe never decreases for constraining the woman's right to kill others. In a more everyday scenario, presuming that money can be can an objective quantification of utility (which I think it is), if Bob steals $100 from Jack, then Bob's utilitarian benefit is $100, and Jack's utilitarian benefit is -$100 (he has been harmed), even though $100 - $100 balances out to zero (by classical utilitarianism it should be considered morally neutral, as well as all theft), people still object to theft on the basis that the thiefs harm is more profound than his benefit. By contrast, thiefs are not harmed as much for being unable to steal money, than people are harmed for having their money stolen, so we have a utilitarian argument that implies victims of harm are harmed to a more profound extent than the beneficients of harm (i.e its worse to harm someone to achieve a benefit, than not to harm someone and be unable to attain the benefit). With those principles above, we can still make a utilitarian evaluation of animal experimentation, but its more difficult to justify because animal experimentation takes lives at a MUCH faster rate than it saves lives. In the example above, I looked at taking 1 life to save 10 others, but the situation is even more difficult to evaluate because animal experimentation usually means taking 1000s of lives to save just 1 other (a hugely disproportionate utilitarian calculation); on the principle that taking lives is worse than not being able to save them, it appears as if animals are harmed for being the victims of animal experimentation, but no one is harmed at all for preventing experimenters from practicing experimentation. Taken together, its almost self-evident that utilitarian benefit cannot catch up to the utilitarian harm, so we have a utilitarian argument against animal experimentation. Utilitarianism is fun, but the fact people dont sacrifice babies to save animals, the fact that taking life is worse than not saving it, and the fact that taking life is not justified by saving another life all form a cumulative utilitarian argument against animal experimentation than for it. On that note, I would like to comment on PeTA and ALF. The latter really is a terrorist organization, and since learning about that, I no longer fund it. They are wrong. Humans are animals too, and they deserve moral treatment. Violence also rarely solves the problem; it often makes it worse and helps the movement backfire. They represent the wacky branch of animal welfare movements. Not all are like that. I'm proud to be a member of PETA and ALF I think a lot of people are too quick to criticize ALF as a terrorist organization without understanding how ALF justifies their actions: Most everyone accepts that beings have a right, whatever that is, to defend themselves. For example, its not murder to kill someone else in self-defense. However, some beings arent capable of defending themselves; for example, babies are a classic example of helplessness, and while they have the right to defend themselves, they just cant because of their physical limitations. In that case, almost everyone accepts that we can intervene and defend the baby on its own behalf, and very often emergencies require violent intervention (i.e. if a parent is beating their kid into the ground, I think its perfectly acceptable to crack a 2x4 across that parents head). ALFs defends animals from harm on their own behalf, because the animals are just so overwhelmed that they cant defend themselves on their own. I think most people will support terrorism given the right circumstances, but I would godwin the thread to death if I explained the circumstances in much detail. At least from the point of view of someone whose been in the AR debate and AR activism for years, its extremely frustrating to be in the microminority. Only 0.5% of people make animal rights a voting issue, and governments are too slow to respond or they just dont care at all. The work of the Humane Society, PETA, ASPCA, and other lobbyist organizations are good, but for how much good work they do, its infinitely frustrating that the business of animal torture keeps growing and growing so much faster than any lobbyist's ability to affect legislation. Its infinitely frustrating, so what can we do? I dont really think there is much else. I dont care that the ALF is classified as a terrorist organization, businesses shouldnt be allowed to profit from animal cruelty. ALF has never killed any humans (can muslim extremists, white nationalists, or militant pro-lifers say that?), they destroy property. When they burn a slaughterhouse to the ground, it drives the price of meat through the roof and destroys a companies stock. Demand for meat goes down when prices go up; a company takes a huge loss from the destroyed meat, and they are unable to recover or rebuild (without huge expenses) when people are unwilling to invest their money into the company. A lot of times, the affects are midrange to longterm, which reduces the net number of animals tortured and killed for profit. I think thats a good thing; the financial harm to companies is trivial next to physical harm caused to the animals, companies are harmed less for losing profit than animals are harmed for being tortured and killed. PeTA is crazy in a non-terrorist way. They go overboard, and they are often hypocritical, killing tonnes of animals anyway. I don't support them either. Both of these organizations make the movement look bad. I used to think the same thing, and a lot of times I still disapprove of their rhetoric and emotional pleas that really undermine the rigorous and complicated philosophy that forms the foundation of the animal rights movement... ...but as a utilitarian myself, they do accomplish a lot more good than people give them credit for. Take a look at this timeline of PETAs actions since 1981, they are very good at what they do, and for that, I support them, and I became a PETA member this year. And on the topic of PETA killing animals, you need to look at it in context and see what PETA says about it: PETA has always supported and spoken openly about euthanasia. It is easy to throw stones at those doing the dirty work for society, but euthanasia is a necessary evil until the massive animal overpopulation problem can be solved. We invite anyone who can offer a home to any animal, pay for one or a hundred spay/neuter surgeries, or persuade others not to go to a pet shop or breeder, to please join us in doing these things. In the last year, we have spayed/neutered more than 7,600 dogs and cats, including feral animals, many free of charge and all others at well below our own costs. Support for this program is much needed. To clarify, we do not run an adoption facility, although we do place animals, approximately 360 in the last year, despite having run out of friends and family members to approach. We are a “shelter of last resort,” taking in and giving a painless death in loving arms to animals who would otherwise have been shot with a .22 or gassed in a windowless metal box, which is what happened in North Carolina before PETA offered free euthanasia services to agencies there. North Carolina has the second highest rate per capita of euthanasia in the country—35 animals killed annually for every 1,000 residents—and most do not die a humane death. Sadly, the shelters we work with have no adoption programs or hours set aside for adoption. At the Bertie County dog shelter, residents were throwing unwanted dogs over an 8-foot-high fence, where they became infected or injured by other sick or aggressive dogs from whom they could not escape. Bertie County also had no facility for cats and used to let them go to breed in the woods and fend for themselves until PETA built a shelter for them this year. PETA has begged for years, through formal proposals and numerous meetings to have the county allow PETA to implement an adoption program as part of a larger picture of sheltering that would also include a spay neuter program, a humane education program, 24/7 emergency services, and rabies clinics. We try never to take in adoptable animals unless we know we have a home for them—only those who are mange-covered, have parvovirus, are injured, old, unsocialized from life on a chain, or unwanted and for whom there are no good homes available. We also work at the roots, spending more than $240,000 in one North Carolina county alone, to provide shelter in winter for animals left out in the cold, to spay/neuter, to get vet care for animals in dire straits, to send Bertie County’s one animal control officer to professional training, to pay a cleaner to maintain two shelters, and much more. PETA euthanizes sick and dying animals, because it would be extremely cruel if those animals were compelled to exist in their miserable states. So yes, PETA "kills" animals, but their practice of humane euthanasia isnt even remotely comparable to the way slaughterhouses kill animals. As a utilitarian, you should support euthanasia, and you should understand there is no inherent hypocrisy in valuing the lives of animals but yet conceding that sometimes painless euthanasia is the only humane thing to do. The real hypocrites are idiots like Penn And Teller parrot the lie that PETA is hypocritical for "killing" animals, because Penn and Teller are diehard supporters of euthanasia too.
gcol Posted October 22, 2006 Posted October 22, 2006 IMM: "For example, a huge percetange of research goes into cosmetics testing (and cosmetics are not necessary to protect human life) and psychological research (which doesnt save lives at all)." You always argue you points well (and at great length, yawn) and at last you have said something with which I agree. Perhaps a compromise is in the wind. Would the statement "Not all purposes to which animal testing is put are worth the lives and health of the test animals." find some grudging favour with you? As regards cosmetics, may I presume you are now as freshfaced and cosmetic-free as the day you were born?
Technocrat Posted October 22, 2006 Posted October 22, 2006 Well yes, I do support Euthanasia. I will try to cite the source I found describing PeTA's methods, because it seemed cruel to me. I don't necessarily think it's wrong to kill animals: I more think it's wrong to cause suffering, pain. I don't think most animals have any desire or preference to continue living or make future plans like Humans. I am also familiar with Dr. Singer, yes. I am a fan of his, although I take issue with some of his stuff. I enjoyed his work in Practical Ethics, and that's actually where I agreed with him on the issue of utility recepical farm animals. Kill and replace etc. He describes why that wouldn't necessarily work with higher level organisms (with a concept of the unique self). I really don't see a problem with killing a rat and replacing it with another one. It's not as if they demonstrate any unique lifeplans from the other. THey are mostly instinctual stimulus-response organisms. Of course, with respect to utilitarianism, no one believes that a life destroyed is equal to a life saved (or a new life created in its place). Here are just a few simple examples to demonstrate this point: Ahh, I quoted in the wrong order. The above comments were directed toward this one. Sorry. But I will reinterate, I don't believe a life killed can always be cancled out by a life created, no. Sometimes, yes, depending on the cogntive capacity of the creature. Without any higher order functions, they are a lot like machines. I would also agree that a life destroyed would be equal to a life saved, though, given that they are relatively equal in extrinsic worth and characteristics. If I kill a rat and replace it with 4 other rats that wouldn't otherwise come into existence, and will have relatively good lives, that's a fair exhange, I think. I just created a + 3 balance of utility. I don't think it's necessary to bring more happy beings into existence merely for the sake of it, though. - Most people believe that its wrong to kill one innocent human even if harvesting his blood and organs saves the lives of 10 others. I don't, though. I see that as fine. The problem I have with it isn't intrinsic, but rather extrinsic. No one would tolerate it. The calculation works out intrinsically, to me. 10>1. I don't think it would work in practicality, though. This is where I would disagree. I feel obligated to prevent 10 from dying even if it requires 1 deliberately killed person. If a train were going to collide with a car filled with 10 children, and the only way to save them would be to rediretct the train onto a grandmother, I really wouldn't think twice about it. Am I deliberately killing her? Yea. I do think that the loss of the ten is worse, prima facie, unless I knew they would grow up to be serial killers or something. But that's unrealistic information to have. I would also like to point out that, from reading Singer, he doesn't argue against all forms of animal testing or experimentation, or at least that's what his newer writings seem to suggest. I will read over your other paragraphs, but I can't do it now. I have to go back up to college, so I won't be back for about a day or two. The problem is that there's no real objective measure of how many of X equals how many of Y when you do an interspecies comparision; even if one accepts that Humans are indeed more worthy of consideration, there's little way to tell how much.
ParanoiA Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Its reaaaaaly obvious you've never read anything on the subject. As for how we kill animals in experimentation' date=' here are some experiments I collected from Pubmed: http://juliet.php0h.com/rubrique.php?id_rubrique=5 You can judge the cruelty for yourself. And as for animal slaughter, let me put it this way: the whole world would rise up and destroy any industry which treated mentally similar humans in the same way that animals are treated in the slaughterhouse (actually, in retrospect, I dont really know if thats true, because a lot of people have no problem buying products manufactured from communist sweatshops and from countries with a history of human rights abuses). Peter Singers book Animal Liberation is a good place to start. And if you dont mind the obvious slant and largely emotional appeals, you can take a look at ChickenIndustry.com, FactoryFarming.com, and Meet Your Meat. The links above use a lot of emotion, but their description of factory farms is essentially accurate: animals are bred for slaughter, and for their whole lives many animals are confined in long rows of cages too small for them to even turn around or move at all. The factories are very dirty, and the amount of animal waste created means an incredibly vile, unsanitary, and diseased atmosphere that would usually kill the animals; but, to combat the disease, animals are pumped full of hormones and steroids to produce growth and prevent the animals from dying. In the US in particular, the conditions on factory farms are incredibly low, and in fact they dont meet the minimum requirements of sanitation that Canada and the UK uses, and it would be illegal for any Canadian or UKian farm to operate on US standards. - For egg factories in particular, 9 to 12 chickens are crammed in tiny cages (usually less than 20 inches wide x 9 inches high), and thousands and thousands of cages are stacked in rows on top of each other. The bottoms of the cages are a wire mesh to allow droppings to fall through the cage (on top of any chickens below) rather than pile up, and very often the mesh is too widely spaced that chickens' legs will fall through the holes and they'll be trapped and be unable to move (and they starve to death). Everyday, one or two people checks the cages for dead chickens to remove them and dispose of them. Additionally, chickens are an instinctually social creature, and they form hierarchial social groups based on a pecking order (i.e. dominating others), but because there are 1000x more chickens in the group than what they'd ever see in the wild, they will literally peck each other to death; and when the chickens get blood on each other, the others percieve the blood as a weakness and will peck the bloodstained chicken to death (where more blood is spilled on more chickens and the cycle repeats). There are cases where thousands of and thousands of chickens will kill each other in a few hours... to combat this problem, when chicks are born, they are put in a kind of vicelike device with a blade that debeaks the chickens, which is a painful process because the beak has a huge supply of blood and nerves (as its the most valuable organ to the chicken), then the bloody numbs are cauterized by pressing them against a redhot sheet of metal. Only female chicks endure that process, because male chicks cant lay eggs, so they are usually thrown away and suffocated in a bag. Finally, to make the egg factories the most profitable, the chickens are fed massive doses of steroids to make them lay eggs at 6 to 10x their natural rate. Usually a chicken will lay an egg or two a day, but a chicken in a factory farm will lay 20 or more. This is a very stressful process for the chicken, because the eggs pull a lot of calcium and protein out of the chickens bodies; when a natural chicken has a lifespan of about 5 or 6 years, a factory farm chicken usually doesnt live past 5 or 6 months before they are "spent". Even though the superfast egg laying process is profitable, if you think about it from a health point of view, the eggs from factory farms are much less nutritionally valuable, because they are produced so quickly that nutrients arent desposited into the egg. (Its not really even possible for nutrients to get into the egg, because chicken feed has very little nutritional value, its composed of the remains of "spent" chickens, newspaper dust, and small amounts of grain.) Something I learned from vivisectionists is that, due to the hormones and steroids, they cant use eggs that come from factory farms because they are just too low quality. Most vivisectionists get their eggs from small Amish farms, who let their chickens run around and lay eggs at their natural rate, and the Amish eggs are much higher quality. - For cows and pigs, their lives are spent in pens that confine their movement almost entirely. They are confined like this because it makes their flesh more tender, and it prevents potential profit from being burned off. For dairy cows, they will only produce milk when they give give birth to an infant (just like all mammals do), so dairy cows spend their entire lives in one of two conditions: hooked to machines which drain milk from them, or temporarily unhooked from the machine to give birth. When dairy calfs are born, they are usually seperated from their mother with 0 to 24 hours of birth; if the dairy calf is a female, its raised in a pen to fatten up so it can fatten up and make babies of its own, and male calves are sold as veal. Veal calves live very short lives: they are confined in stalls where they are unable to move or even stand up, and they are fed an iron deficient diet (which is a liquid gruel composed of wood ash and cows blood) in order to give their flesh a distinctive pale appearence.(On the subject of feeding calves the blood of other cows, mad cow disease is transmitted when an infected cow is ground up and fed to other cows.) Contrary to the popular notion that cows are thoughtless animals which have no purpose except to produce meat, they are actually very social animals and have complex social lives, and they will actually become visibly upset and ill when seperated from their calf. Like the chickens, most dairy cows never see sunlight, and the factories are so unsanitary that they have to be pumped full of steroids to keep them alive just long enough that they make a profit. Of course, its interesting that many of the hormones given to US cattle are banned in Canada and the UK, which led to a ban on (some) US beef imports into the UK from '96 onward (I'm not sure if the ban is still in place, but this source states that its banned US beef all the way into '04). The hormones where intially banned because they were a danger to human health. Of course, the slaughter process isnt as painless as you think it is. One of my co-workers used to work at a slaughterhouse, and he was a "knocker", which basically meant he smashed the animals on the head with a hydrolic hammer (or a type of gun) to stun them. Additionally, the hammer device that is used to stun the animals doesnt always work on the first try, it can take 3 or 4 knocks with the device before the animals is finally unconscious, but if the animal resists going down or the line is moving too fast, the animal will be shackled upside down by the leg whether its unconscious or not. He describes that a lot of times, animals arent killed correctly, so they will be hung on hooks while still screaming and squealing before they are disemboweled by a machine, fed into grinding devices, skinned, or submerged in scalding tanks while they're still alive. And as a result, he became a vegetarian for 10 years. But still I havent even mentioned a fraction of the harm caused by animal factories, such as the pain caused by branding or the horrible conditions that animals are put through when they are transported on large trucks (about 5% die during that process). Something that you have to keep in mind, 10 billion animals are slaughtered in factories everyday and the governments protect the factories. I wonder everyday what kind of person would voluntarily participate in the operation of those factories, or why they would buy factory meat? Then I remember that they dont see feeling beings in a completely tortured existenc who will be slaughtered and cut into pieces, they see colorful labels on food that completely seperate them from knowing about the factory farm. One of the most disappointing things that I come across all the time is this: whenever I mention the suffering in factory farms, someone always says "dont talk about that, I dont want to know about it or I'll start feeling guilty lol"...[/quote'] Ok, so basically all of that boils down to humans doing a rotten job of farming our meat. Certainly blows my "we kill really nice" theory to pieces. Although, I see why hunters are so much more respectful of wildlife. My father is quite strict about hunting ethics, in that death should be quick and painless if at all possible. You certainly see nothing ethical about that - but it seems to me that most hunters are probably the sane middle ground. They appreciate nature for what it is, not the logical circles you run in trying to follow "logic" to its ends. I would rather see humans treat our livestock so much better. We shouldn't stand for that kind nastiness. I certainly agree with you there. But, what makes humans so special? You've all but admitted you're a misanthrope by your arguments. Why must humans live up to any expectation that you put on us? What is it that makes humans the exception in the animal kingdom, that we should behave so much differently? Every other animal is perfectly justified in following its instincts without fault - but we are a rotten species because of the same thing? Lots of animals suffer. Some from their own stupid actions, and some from a predatory action - some are one in the same. That's life - and death. Humans cause suffering to other humans and other animals - and so do other animals. What have you seen in nature that would suggest we shouldn't cause suffering? Sorry, I just question this whole notion that humans are supposed to live up to some goofy expectation that defies are natural diet and instincts. Reminds me of the point AzurePhoenix makes about humans not having to try very hard to survive anymore - so we have all of this time on our hands to "think" ourselves to death.... Animal testing is great. Better them than me. And I'm not sorry for that attitude, and I believe it is unhealthy for other humans not to have that attitude. If there's anything I've gleaned from ecosystem observation, it's that all lifeforms should act in self-interest, or at least instinct and allow the "system" to work.
Technocrat Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 so basically all of that boils down to humans doing a rotten job of farming our meat. Certainly blows my "we kill really nice" theory to pieces. Although, I see why hunters are so much more respectful of wildlife. My father is quite strict about hunting ethics, in that death should be quick and painless if at all possible. You certainly see nothing ethical about that - but it seems to me that most hunters are probably the sane middle ground. They appreciate nature for what it is, not the logical circles you run in trying to follow "logic" to its ends. Are you saying the middle way is the right way? Inherently sane between the two? I wouldn't say the Golden Mean is necessarily moral. Hunting can indeed be ethical for a variety of reasons,if there are not suitabl e alternatives: 1. For those who need meat. 2. To cull populations to save people 3. To cull populations to save the animals themselves (from overpop) There are more, but I can't think of them right now. But, what makes humans so special? You've all but admitted you're a misanthrope by your arguments. Why must humans live up to any expectation that you put on us? What is it that makes humans the exception in the animal kingdom, that we should behave so much differently? Every other animal is perfectly justified in following its instincts without fault - but we are a rotten species because of the same thing? Are you saying instinct=ethical? If so, I hate to break it to you. Just because something's natural doesn't mean it's moral. Many animals, including humans, naturally beat the shit out of others, murder, and rape (Chimpanzees, especially). Obviously, since that's their instinctual behaviour, they ought to follow it. Therefore rape becomes good because it is natural behaviour. Humans are rotten because we can choose; we have volition. We understand and have the capability to understand right and wrong. Automatons and low intelligence creatures cannot. It doesn't mean they cannot feel pain or suffer; it just means they cannot comprehend the abstract concepts (and this ability increases with intelligence increases). Humans shouldn't behave like they do if they don't have to for suvival, because it causes unnessary harm. Whether it's our natural instinct to be assholes is irrelevant to the morality question. Do you really want to put yourself on the same level as a mindless frog that doesn't know any better, therefore is not immoral? Hardly. Animals are amoral. They cannot be held responsible any more than jimmy the retard with an IQ of 20. Lots of animals suffer. Some from their own stupid actions, and some from a predatory action - some are one in the same. That's life - and death. Humans cause suffering to other humans and other animals - and so do other animals. What have you seen in nature that would suggest we shouldn't cause suffering? Sorry, I just question this whole notion that humans are supposed to live up to some goofy expectation that defies are natural diet and instincts. Reminds me of the point AzurePhoenix makes about humans not having to try very hard to survive anymore - so we have all of this time on our hands to "think" ourselves to death.... Again, you hit upon the "natural diet and instinct," as if anything that contradicts that is automatically goofy and stupid. That's absurd. Accoridng to your logic, since rape is a natural behaviour of humans and other animals, as is war and other hyperaggressive "instinctual" behaviours, any morality system that contradicts nature is goofy. Whether a diet is natural or instinctual is irrelevant to the morality. Natural != moral. There's nothing in nature that leads to the conclusion that it's ethical in the slightest. Any argument you can make for humans being ethical if they follow their instincts immediately backfires as you also see perfectly moral many other henious, but equally "natural" behaviours. Sociopathy is natural. Therefore, it is good. Animal testing is great. Better them than me. And I'm not sorry for that attitude, and I believe it is unhealthy for other humans not to have that attitude. If there's anything I've gleaned from ecosystem observation, it's that all lifeforms should act in self-interest, or at least instinct and allow the "system" to work. You really don't mean that at all; you wouldn't want the "system" or "nature" to work its course. ONce you experienced that, you would be clamouring for civilization and "ethical rules and regulations" again. You cannot glean ethical behaviour by simply looking at nature, unless you realy would prefer to live in a chaotic, nasty society like the Chimpanzees where your competitor, due to "natural instincts" will eat or kill your kids and then rape you to maintain hegemony over the group. It's natural! Therefore moral! Don't mess with the ecosystem!
ParanoiA Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Technocrat I'm not going to bother pasting all of the quotes since we disagree on morality. The answer is yes. I do believe it is better for the animal kingdom to rape, kill, beat the shit of each other, all that stuff. To me, what is natural equals good - not necessarily for me personally, but good for the system as a whole. That's how it's built. You're not going to shock me into changing that philosophy. Morality though? That's a man made concept so that we can live in cooperative groups and advance our quality of life by not acting on our natural instincts to murder and rape each other. You and IMM and others, seem to see humans as these above average intelligent creatures capable of so much benevolence yet doing so much harm. I see humans as these above average intelligent creatures capable of so much selfish malevolence yet doing so much positive. We are actually built to be the savages of nature's nightmares. Yet we are nice enough to appreciate a cute, fluffy animal and take it home and get to know it a little bit and be nice to it. Then we learn a little more about it and begin to appreciate even more of the creatures around us - even the ugly icky ones. And on and on.. I'm surprised we're as nice as we are. I try to appreciate that and understand that it's probably humans going through a positive transition - that has to be slowwww - evolution doesn't have anywhere to be ya know...
Technocrat Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Technocrat I'm not going to bother pasting all of the quotes since we disagree on morality. The answer is yes. I do believe it is better for the animal kingdom to rape, kill, beat the shit of each other, all that stuff. To me, what is natural equals good - not necessarily for me personally, but good for the system as a whole. That's how it's built. You're not going to shock me into changing that philosophy. Ok. I should reinterate your point for everyone else here so we don't misunderstand you in the future. 1. He is seriously arguing that it's better to rape, kill, and beat the shit out of everyone becaues said behaviour is natural. So, in essence, violence simply because it's natural is good, since nature = good. In essense, according to his logic, we ought to get rid of the police and just let nature take it's course as the violent sociopaths overrun the rest of society and beat them, rape them into submission. After all, natural behaviour is always moral. Morality though? That's a man made concept so that we can live in cooperative groups and advance our quality of life by not acting on our natural instincts to murder and rape each other. Compare to the previous statement where he claimed that morality = nature = good. In one fell swoop, he flat out contradicts his own concept of morality. Observe. He wrote: "I do believe it is better for the animal kingdom to rape, kill, beat the shit of each other, all that stuff. To me, what is natural equals good." His first set of premises and the conclusion: 1. That which is natural is moral 2. Rape, Violence, and Killing is natural 3. Therefore, they is moral. He's obviously saying that morality is determined by what is natural. All the above are natural, therefore, they are all good. Ignoring that this falls into the naturalistic fallacy, let's move on to his second argument in the following paragraph. 1. Morality is a tool created by man 2. The tool is to avoid rape, killing, and violence (murder). 3. Therefore, morality is to counteract many natural impluses. As you can see, the first statements he made about morality directly contradict his second statements. It cannot simultaneously, without qualifiers (and those qualifiers have to be objective) be natural desires, instincts, occurances = moral and moral = that which holds back natural impluses and drives and instincts. He's tacitly implying it is part of morality to counteract that which is already de facto moral by virtue of being natural. This creates more problems, though, since both "nice" behaviours and "bad" behaviours are equally naturally for humanity, so in his view, he exihibits twice the double-think. Since natural = moral, it is both moral to rape and kill and cause violence as well as to cooperate, help the sick and injured, and take care of others (and stop rape, murder, etc). Natural behaviours contradict one another about as much as his ethical "philosophy," which he hasn't even thought out enough to stop from contradicting himself from one paragraph to the next. Just think folks. It's ok to rape and murder, but also ok to stop rape and murder. Both are natural, and natural is good, but the good is also to hold back that which is natural which is moral! Anyone seeing his problem? You and IMM and others, seem to see humans as these above average intelligent creatures capable of so much benevolence yet doing so much harm. Which is true. Humans are the most intelligent and self-aware creature we know of. Humans are extremely intelligent compared to other animals. They are also capable of great unnecessary harm and significant altruistic behaviour. Both are natural. see humans as these above average intelligent creatures capable of so much selfish malevolence yet doing so much positive. It's a bit of both. Humans are both "good" and "bad." They are not evil as a whole. It's not inherently evil to do something for self-interest. It becomes wrong when you disregard the interests of others which are similar specifically because they are not you. Humans could be nicer. They also could be a lot worse than they already are. I doesn't really or ultimately matter which semantic wrangle we choose to accept. Our aim should be to stay alive, but case the least quantity of uwanted, objective pain and suffering to others while doing so.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now