Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

[Lance]

No, because sending your son to school also has advantages for him, like him getting an education and being able to get a good job later in life.

 

Being killed also has its advantages.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Being killed also has its advantages.

...although none are things you can look forward to later in life.

 

Education is good for everyone, but death is only good in extreme cases (if ever).

[Lance]

but death is only good in extreme cases (if ever).

 

Why is death bad?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Because then you can't have any more happiness in life... any more experiences, any more fun, and so on. You're just dead.

 

But this is offtopic.

[Sayonara]

Sayonara' date='

For a lot of the same reasons it is unethical to kill a human: they suffer, and they probably dont want to die.[/quote']

I don't believe that they "want" anything, nor do I believe that they are self-aware, which by definition precludes self-actuated self preservation. Nobody has ever - in the entire history of agriculture, animal husbandry or behavioural biology - provided evidence that they do either of those things. If that is to be a part of your response then the burden of proof lies with you, since the claim differs from objective observation of actual cows.

 

Regardless, let's take a look at their suffering. Since I did not specify how the cow is killed, it is presumptuous of you to claim that the animal will suffer. A bolt through the brain case, for example, will shut the animal down before it realises anything is out of the ordinary.

 

"Ethical" is defined as in accordance with principles of conduct that are considered correct, esp. those of a given profession or group.

This makes it entirely subjective, and clearly killing a cow is not at odds with this society's ethical views.

 

I would heartily agree that causing suffering to animals is not ethical, especially where that suffering is needless, but I also acknowledge that my 'principles of conduct' are not shared by every (possibly any) other person.

 

And so we find ourselves still awaiting an answer to my earlier question.

[Mokele]

I don't believe that they "want" anything, nor do I believe that they are self-aware, which by definition precludes self-actuated self preservation.

 

Could you clarify that, because it almost sounds like you're saying they have no self-preservation instincts, which I doubt is the correct reading.

 

Mokele

[Newtonian]

Ive been to an abatoir,and believe me THEY know they aint going in to get milked.

[Sayonara]

Could you clarify that, because it almost sounds like you're saying they have no self-preservation instincts, which I doubt is the correct reading.

Hence 'self-actuated' is in there

[Sayonara]

Ive been to an abatoir,and believe me THEY[/b'] know they aint going in to get milked.

'Cows being nervous' is not that unusual. If there's a link between them recognising the function of an abbatoir, and fearing for their own lives, the onus is on you to show it.

 

Correlation is not causality.

[Aardvark]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/30/hair.color/

http://www.hallgold.com/toxic_chemicals_in_cosmetics.html

thats a quick 2 sec google' date='i will try to get some Uk info[/quote']

 

The first link makes no reference to whether the product was tested on animals, although a company spokesman did state that it had be 'throughly tested'.

 

The second link made no reference to burns or injuries caused by hair products or to animal testing.

 

From searching myself i can find no evidence at all for your assertion that lack of animal testing has caused any women at al to be injuried by hair products.

[Mokele]

'Cows being nervous' is not that unusual. If there's a link between them recognising the function of an abbatoir, and fearing for their own lives, the onus is on you to show it.

 

Scent. For a herbivorous herd animal, the scent of blood and alarm pheremones would likely trigger anxiety at the least. "Fearing for their life" is a bit much, given that, well, cows aren't exactly brilliant animals, but some sort of instinctual level of alarm, fear and unease as a purely biological/chemical response to scents is a very reasonable possibility.

 

Proving some sort of advanced cognition about future possibilities and knowledge of death and what it entails is a lot harder, but, well, I'd argue that humans react to death and danger in similarly instinctive, programmed ways, so it's not all that difference.

 

Not that I'm against using cows for food; quite the opposite. In fact, enough of the opposite that I'm tempted to actually look into the legalities of opening my own "Soylent Green" plant...

 

Mokele

[In My Memory]

Sayonara

 

I don't believe that they "want" anything, nor do I believe that they are self-aware, which by definition precludes self-actuated self preservation. Nobody has ever[/u'] - in the entire history of agriculture, animal husbandry or behavioural biology - provided evidence that they do either of those things. If that is to be a part of your response then the burden of proof lies with you, since the claim differs from objective observation of actual cows.

Not wanting to shift the burden of proof, but what would prove to you that cows or other animals are self-aware?

 

For me, it doesnt seem terribly far-fetched. They have a sophisticated mammalian brain allowing them to carry about certain cognitive abilities, the brain is physiologically very similar to a human brain - it doesnt seem that self-awareness should be a uniquely human experience.

 

However, similarity doesnt really mean much to skeptics - what really matters is how we connect behavior and other observable characteristics with conscious experience. I'm not a psychologist, so I'm not sure how this is done in much detail, but I think a few experiments I can find seem to do this fairly well:

 

From The Guardian - Do animals think?:

...Keith Kendrick at the Babraham Institute in Cambridge years ago astonished the world by revealing that sheep could recognise up to 50 other sheep, and up to 10 human faces for at least two years after first seeing them. If a sheep can tell the difference between other sheep from flash cards and screen pictures, it must have a sense of these other sheep even when they are not there, and perhaps also have an idea of "self": a sense of ewe and "I".

 

More disconcertingly, pigs have demonstrated their own theory of mind. Mike Mendl of Bristol university revealed at the British Association science festival in 2002 that experiments showed that a stronger pig that did not know where the food was hidden learned to follow the weaker, but better informed animal, to the trough. At which point the weaker pig would start to use distracting behaviour to keep the bully pig guessing, and only dive for the rations when not being watched. That is, a pig could guess what another pig was thinking and outsmart it. In a human, this is called "intelligence".

I rather think the pig example is a better indicator of non-human self-awareness, it seems that knowledge of other animals mental states is a byproduct of self-awareness. At least it doesnt seem like the pig is operating on autopilot or responding in mechanical ways, and the behavior seems to be distinguished from merely being reflexive or conditioned.

 

A highly recommended read I've come across is Consciousness in Animals and People with Autism (see also another article of interest, Thinking the way animals do from the same author). The article is too extensive to quote in detail, but needless to say it includes lots of experiments that seem to indicate that animals can recognize their own unique existence, perform reasoned problem solving, relate present experience with memories, etc. A quick excerpt:

Conclusions

 

As brains become more complex the complexity of consciousness increases. Maybe in some animals only one sense is fully conscious. It may be easier to define consciousness by saying what it is not. It is not a reflex, it is not simple conditioning, and it is not a hard wired instinct which works like a computer program. Conscious behavior is flexible. Conscious behavior allows animals to make choices between different options. It is difficult for some people to imagine a consciousness that is different from themselves. Language based thinkers often have difficulty imagining that animals can think. They can not imagine thinking without words. Collin Allen in the philosophy department at Texas A & M University states that many scientists can accept the idea that animals have internal representations of memories and events. Some people think animals are not conscious because they do not have beliefs and desires like humans. I do not have some of the higher abstract consciousness most people have, so I have to define "belief" and "desire." If I say I desire chocolate cake I immediately see a slice of cake. In fact I see it at a particular cafe'. Desire has no abstract meaning. I just see pictures of things I would want such as an ice cream cone. I use the word belief to describe things where there is a high probability that something may be true, but I am not 100% sure.

 

I've found an abudance of information on monkeys, dolphins, and pigs, but I have come across little that talks about cows specifically (maybe they are just more boring animals to study than chimpanzees and pigs?), although I would think that cows are reasonably intelligent enough to imagine their own existence through time.

 

Regardless, let's take a look at their suffering. Since I did not specify how the cow is killed, it is presumptuous of you to claim that the animal will suffer. A bolt through the brain case, for example, will shut the animal down before it realises anything is out of the ordinary.

All things being equal, its less unethical to kill something painlessly than to torture it beforehand.

 

However, dont let the idea that killing something painlessly shoots down its ethical implications. For instance, take the reasons you might consider shooting someone in the back to be unethical (assuming that you do, of course) - it is functionally no different than killing a cow before it knows what hit it.

 

Largely, what we have to go by is the interests of an individual. There isnt an "experience requirement" necessary to make an action wrong (for instance, slandering another individual is wrong even if that individual never finds out - the reason being that the individual has a interest in retaining his or her image).

 

Cows seem to have a conscious interest in the preservation of their own existence. I dont have specific cow example, but I did notice a pig example that Syntax posted on this board:

Well, I will say that I have seen instances where animals appear to have learned from the mistakes of others (making them more concious than many humans).

 

When I was a kid, we lived on a farm, and this being back in the 40s, we slaughtered our own meat.

 

When it came time to butcher a pig, my father would put some feed into the trough that the pigs fed from, and when they began to feed, he would shoot the one we wanted to butcher in the head with a rifle. The other pigs would run off into a far corner of the pig lot, and would not return to the feeding trouth as long as one of us was nearby.

 

I noticed this, even as a child, and since one of my chores was to feed the pigs, I conducted a little experiment. I would put the feed into the trough and when the pigs started to eat, I would point a stick at one of them. Instantly, they would retreat from the feed trough. This little lesson stuck in their heads for about a week. After than, they paid no attention to me.

Were the pigs conditioned to be afraid of the noise or were they genuinely interested in their own continued existence? What does Syntax think?

 

Aside of whatever information I can find from others, what I already know about cows seems to tell me that they arent animals too "dumb" to understand their own existence. For instance, a mother dairy cow forms a complex bond with its baby cow (maybe this can be easier to relate if we compare it to the way horses bond with their young), and their interest in the continued existence of their infant cow seems to be conscious to some extent (it might be hardwired to care for its young, but by no means is it behavior acted out like a pre-programmed automaton). So, the cow seems capable of imagining the experiences and existence of other animals and modifying its behavior accordingly, why shouldnt it be aware of own existence? To this extent, cows appear to be more conscious than very young humans (for the first few years, toddlers live in their "egocentric" phase where they are incapable of imagining what things look like from the perspective of other individuals). And, of course, a bit of anecdotal evidence: People who I've known that have own pet cows describe it as a lot like owning a dog, not at all like owning an ant farm.

 

"Ethical" is defined as in accordance with principles of conduct that are considered correct' date=' esp. those of a given profession or group.[/i']

This makes it entirely subjective, and clearly killing a cow is not at odds with this society's ethical views.

 

I would heartily agree that causing suffering to animals is not ethical, especially where that suffering is needless, but I also acknowledge that my 'principles of conduct' are not shared by every (possibly any) other person.

 

And so we find ourselves still awaiting an answer to my earlier question.

I have a little expertise in the area of philosophy, ethics in particular. I mean this only in the strictest and most professional sense, but what you've just defined as "ethical" and how you described it is naive.

 

What you have described has less to do with actual ethical decisions, and more to do with the practicality of customs (such as whether it is appropriate to take your shoes off before entering a neighbors house - these kinds of things arent ethical decisions, at least not in the same sense as explaining whether lying under oath is acceptable).

 

As popular as what "subjectivism" or "relativism" or the "what you believe may not be what I believe" thinking is nowadays, its wrong. Moral facts are simply true or false, and not dependent on the individual or culture. This isnt the same thing as saying that all cultures should be treated the same, it means that what some cultures or customs believe are morally correct may in fact be very very wrong. As an example, some native American tribes used to sacrifice infants by burning them alive, and they believed this was a moral and ethical thing to do - but they were wrong.

 

And it isnt that such behavior would be considered wrong today - they were wrong in the time they were performed, wrong in any time they would be performed in the future, and wrong in all the times in between.

 

The reason why ethical decisions arent committed to purely subjective matters of opinion is very simple: if people disagree about things, then there is an objective fact that is being disagreed about - for instance the objective rightness or wrongness of infant sacrifices. If an analogy can be drawn, objective ethical facts are a lot like objective scientific facts: in the past, the idea that the earth was flat was accepted by culture at large, but today we know the earth is round despite what those people in the past used to believe (it doesnt make any sense to say that we've only proved that the earth is round today) - there is an objective fact about whether the earth was round or flat, and that objective fact is what we disagree about with pre-Greek cultures. If there werent any objective facts, we wouldnt be able to disagree in the first place, the same holds true for disagreements among ethical facts. Ethical facts are henceforth objective.

 

Thats all there is to it - to show that morality is not subjective, all you have to do is show that people or cultures actually have disputes with one another about whether actions are ethical (which they do).

 

This is the reason why when you say "I also acknowledge that my 'principles of conduct' are not shared by every (possibly any) other person" is a watertight comment, but sails past the point. What you ask is "How is it unethical to kill a cow?", however your semantics shifted the the question to essentially "Is it culturally acceptable to kill a cow?". I assume you want an answer to the first question, because the second question isnt meaningful or even relevant.

[Newtonian]

The first link makes no reference to whether the product was tested on animals' date=' although a company spokesman did state that it had be 'throughly tested'.

 

The second link made no reference to burns or injuries caused by hair products or to animal testing.

 

From searching myself i can find no evidence at all for your assertion that lack of animal testing has caused any women at al to be injuried by hair products.[/quote']

Lets not get carried away here.My point was highlighting that animal testing was neccersary,the consequences with the lack of said testing has led to harmfull health risks in humans.Unfortunately at the moment i cannot find a link for you on the net regarding the burn injuries in the UK by non-animal tested hair dyes.But it has been in the media here over the last year,maybe someone else here from the UK can varify by proxy.

 

heres a few links from 10 min search.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1162356/posts

http://www.keratin.com/ar/ar038.shtml#01

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1934496.stm

 

In my opinion the toxicity of products must be tested on animals,to ensure the health of humans.The benefits far outway ethics.

Did you know P&G killed 48 monkeys testing a well known nasal decongestant.Imagine humans dying because they didnt,and the public outcry "why was it not tested on animals first".

[Sayonara]

Scent. For a herbivorous herd animal' date=' the scent of blood and alarm pheremones would likely trigger anxiety at the least. "Fearing for their life" is a bit much, given that, well, cows aren't exactly brilliant animals, but some sort of instinctual level of alarm, fear and unease as a purely biological/chemical response to scents is a very reasonable possibility.

 

Proving some sort of advanced cognition about future possibilities and knowledge of death and what it entails is a lot harder, but, well, I'd argue that humans react to death and danger in similarly instinctive, programmed ways, so it's not all that difference.[/quote']

There most certainly is a distinction between fearing for one's own life, and physiological reaction to a threat. Hence me using the particular phrasing that I did.

 

I am aware that cows will react negatively to certain stimuli. What I am disputing are the contentions that (a) they recognise that being in an abbatoir will lead to their demise, and (b) they fear for their lives in a self-conscious fashion.

[Sayonara]

Not wanting to shift the burden of proof, but what would prove to you that cows or other animals are self-aware?

Surprise me.

 

 

For me, it doesnt seem terribly far-fetched. They have a sophisticated mammalian brain allowing them to carry about certain cognitive abilities, the brain is physiologically very similar to a human brain - it doesnt seem that self-awareness should be a uniquely human experience.

And that's all very well, but it doesn't mean we should assume that state of affairs because it suits argument number 34567-a to do so.

 

 

I rather think the pig example is a better indicator of non-human self-awareness, it seems that knowledge of other animals mental states is a byproduct of self-awareness. At least it doesnt seem like the pig is operating on autopilot or responding in mechanical ways, and the behavior seems to be distinguished from merely being reflexive or conditioned.

Despite the fact that pigs are not cows, I will respond to this to say that ever-more sophisticated examples of individual->group behaviour are not evidence of self-conscious thought or, if you prefer, recognition of self. We still don't really understand what consciousness is in humans, much less how to spot it in other species.

 

 

I've found an abudance of information on monkeys, dolphins, and pigs, but I have come across little that talks about cows specifically (maybe they are just more boring animals to study than chimpanzees and pigs?), although I would think that cows are reasonably intelligent enough to imagine their own existence through time.

Monkeys, pigs and dolphins are all likely candidates for being self-aware in some fashion (or, at least, they are on that road). However they have no bearing on my original question.

 

Assuming that cows have some random characteristic (in this case intelligence, which is not necessarily a, or even the only, prerequisite for conscious thought) and that therefore they must be self-aware is the same logical folly I asked you to back up earlier. You're just repeating yourself.

 

 

All things being equal, its less unethical to kill something painlessly than to torture it beforehand.

However, dont let the idea that killing something painlessly shoots down its ethical implications. For instance, take the reasons you might consider shooting someone in the back to be unethical (assuming that you do, of course) - it is functionally no different than killing a cow before it knows what hit it.

OK, let's recap:

 

Me: Why is it unethical to kill a cow?

You: It causes suffering.

Me: They don't necessarily suffer.

You: Ah, well you see, then it's still unethical.

 

 

Largely, what we have to go by is the interests of an individual. There isnt an "experience requirement" necessary to make an action wrong (for instance, slandering another individual is wrong even if that individual never finds out - the reason being that the individual has a interest in retaining his or her image).

Cows seem to have a conscious interest in the preservation of their own existence. I dont have specific cow example, but I did notice a pig example that Syntax posted on this board:

"Seem to" doesn't cut it. Again, all you're doing is highlighting that you think they are reacting in a conscious fashion.

 

 

Were the pigs conditioned to be afraid of the noise or were they genuinely interested in their own continued existence? What does Syntax think?

Simple Pavlovian conditioning. The pigs don't know one of them is going to die; what they are reacting to is the pre-stimulus that indicates someone is going to make a cracking great boom next to their head, which most animals can do without during meals. The pigs' reduced reaction and eventual apathy towards Syntax was an example of exactly the same process.

 

You seem to believe that recognition of other sources of information (i.e. other organisms) requires recognition of self. I contend that this is not necessarily so, and to take one to be an indication of the existence of the other is a non sequitur.

 

Aside of whatever information I can find from others, what I already know about cows seems to tell me that they arent animals too "dumb" to understand their own existence.

Again, what "seems" right to you is not enough for you to claim it as fact for the purposes of constructing an argument about anything other than how things seem to you.

Telling people how it is not right to do such-and-such a thing requires more objectivity, or it simply is not credible.

 

 

For instance, a mother dairy cow forms a complex bond with its baby cow (maybe this can be easier to relate if we compare it to the way horses bond with their young), and their interest in the continued existence of their infant cow seems to be conscious to some extent (it might be hardwired to care for its young, but by no means is it behavior acted out like a pre-programmed automaton).

I really don't see why you would label this as "complex" behaviour, when it's fairly rudimentary and rife throughout the kingdom. There's that "seems to be conscious" again; based on what?

Biology is an inherently reductionist system - it will not prescribe a highly complex enactor for a relatively simple process. In other words, why would conscious thought evolve in cows, but in such a way that it is rarely expressed to the extent that we might be able to detect it, just so that a cow can contemplate (or ruminate, if you're into puns) the future of its calve while it licks mud off her face?

 

 

So, the cow seems capable of imagining the experiences and existence of other animals and modifying its behavior accordingly, why shouldnt it be aware of own existence?

Because (a) that is based on speculation, and (b) association of a consistent stimulus with its source is not self-awareness.

Maybe they do imagine the existence and experiences of other animals - the fact is that we don't know, and to base an argument on speculation is to build a house of cards.

 

 

I have a little expertise in the area of philosophy, ethics in particular. I mean this only in the strictest and most professional sense, but what you've just defined as "ethical" and how you described it is naive.

I presented that description as the definition of 'ethical', and that is exactly what it is. For you to ascribe that definition to me and label it "naive" is fairly childish, particularly where you present no superior definition.

 

Granted the subject of ethics can be complex (particularly in practical application), but when one asks "how is it unethical to kill a cow?", if it is so clearly unethical one might reasonably expect a straight answer within one post.

 

 

What you have described has less to do with actual ethical decisions, and more to do with the practicality of customs (such as whether it is appropriate to take your shoes off before entering a neighbors house - these kinds of things arent ethical decisions, at least not in the same sense as explaining whether lying under oath is acceptable).

Quite.

 

 

As popular as what "subjectivism" or "relativism" or the "what you believe may not be what I believe" thinking is nowadays, its wrong.

...and so on...

That was the point I was making in my post. If you follow it, you will see that I am pointing out the absurdity of so-called "ethical arguments" outside an objective framework.

 

This is the reason why when you say "I also acknowledge that my 'principles of conduct' are not shared by every (possibly any) other person" is a watertight comment, but sails past the point. What you ask is "How is it unethical to kill a cow?", however your semantics shifted the the question to essentially "Is it culturally acceptable to kill a cow?". I assume you want an answer to the first question, because the second question isnt meaningful or even relevant.

No, you sailed right past the point. The point I was making is that an appeal to common practice will not answer the question (for either of us).

 

Hence the closing line of my post: "And so we find ourselves still awaiting an answer to my earlier question."

 

 

You have stated that ethics are objective facts. If this is the case, and you believe killing a cow to be unethical, there must therefore be an objective fact to support that position.

[Sayonara]

I think it would be immensely helpful at this juncture for me to clarify my position:

 

I am not making the argument that cows are not conscious. I am simply asking that if the claim is made that they are, then objective evidence is shown to allow that claim to be useful to the discussion.

 

Regarding my earlier question, "how is it unethical to kill a cow?" (which was actually directed at Cap'n Refsmmat, but he seems to be replying using the distinctive strategy of not replying), it may be helpful to use some kind of base level.

To that end we might define why murder is unethical, since this seems to be fairly universally-agreed upon.

[Mart]

I am not making the argument that cows are not conscious. I am simply asking that if the claim is made that they are, then objective evidence is shown to allow that claim to be useful to the discussion.

can anyone on this forum give me objective evidence that they are conscious?

[In My Memory]

Sayonara,

 

Surprise me.

If you take a cow, and try to push it off a cliff, it doesnt want to go. It shows physical distress, and anxiety which can be measured by an EEG or similar machine. (Assuming cows can judge depth, of course.)

 

The cow can deduce the consequences of future events, its mental states will be affected and its interests will be modeled with respect to those consequences. In this case, the mental states (distress and anxiety) are evidence that the cow has a sense of self, and an interest to continue its existence.

 

Even if it isnt clear that the cow has a distinct preference for continued existence, it has other preferences which would require continued existence to be satisfied.

 

OK' date=' let's recap:

 

Me: Why is it unethical to kill a cow?

You: It causes suffering.

Me: They don't necessarily suffer.

You: Ah, well you see, then it's still unethical.[/quote']

Sayonara: How do you mean?

In My Memory: Because they value the continuation of their own existence.

Sayonara: Prove it.

In My Memory: I'm not an expert, but I'll see what I can come up with.

Sayonara: Thank you, I appreciate it.

 

"Seem to" doesn't cut it. Again, all you're doing is highlighting that you think[/u'] they are reacting in a conscious fashion.

Scattered all throughout my posts are phrases like "seems to", "perhaps", "possibly", "can be described" etc. Its just my very cautious way of writing posts. (Besides, it would be inappropriate for me to use absolutist buzzwords like "without a shadow of a doubt", "irrefutably", or "definitely".)

 

You've redefined my typically cautious way of writing things to be a subjective unjustified personal reaction - it isnt. Everything I've said is valid inference and scientifically meritable, and to the best of my ability is completely objective. I dont expect for you to read my mind and guess my intentions, but please dont dismiss what I have to say based on my cautious use of language.

 

You seem to believe that recognition of other sources of information (i.e. other organisms) requires recognition of self. I contend that this is not necessarily so, and to take one to be an indication of the existence of the other is a non sequitur[/i'].

"You seem to believe..."

 

Actually, recognition of other mental states is an enormously relevant concept. It shows that some animals have a theory of mind, and they have the ability to discern "those parts belong to that animal, these parts belong to me" (that is the literal definition of self-awareness).

 

Taking in the behavior of other animals is very common behavior of social awareness. We usually think of monkeys as a prime example of social animals, but cows are surprisingly social animals, they will form life-long friendships, they have preferences, they can be vain. Social interactions like these tell you what an animal thinks about other animals and their intentions (this is literally "thinking about thought"), they tell you that animals have some capacity to engage in ritualization and determination that is inadequately explained conditioning or instinct, its one of the best indicators of non-human awareness available.

 

I really don't see why you would label this as "complex" behaviour, when it's fairly rudimentary and rife throughout the kingdom. There's that "seems to be conscious" again; based on what?

Based on the behavior, of course. The bonds mother cows form with their calfs is on a non-mechanical and personal level. We know this because the behavior of the cow becomes less vigorous when the calf dies or is removed. The same kind of behavior is sometimes seen in monkeys who lose their young, or elephants who mourn over bones. An excerpt from The Secret Life of Cows shows the real complexity behind cow/calf bonding:

Mothers and daughters

Calves often make friends for life on the day they are born, or very soon after.

 

Sometimes three calves all born within a short space of each other form a group but more often it is a two-calf friendship, usually between the two who are closest in age.

 

Relationships between mothers and calves are often more complicated and fascinating than those merely between peers. Some calves are boss over their mothers, some mothers are too protective and some too casual. But perhaps two of the more interesting stories concerned Dolly and Dolly II and Stephanie and Olivia.

 

Stephanie and her daughter Olivia enjoyed a normal, close relationship and went everywhere together until Olivia had her first calf. When the calf was due to be born, Stephanie advised and comforted Olivia and helped her choose a good spot to calve, close to clear, running water. Stephanie settled herself down at a handy but not intrusive fifty yards distance. Olivia calved without difficulty and was immediately besotted by her beautiful cream-coloured bull calf whom we named Orlando. She licked him dry, suckled him and quite simply doted on him. Stephanie came along a couple of hours later to be introduced and for the next few days grazed nearby hoping to be a useful and integral part of the threesome. As young calves spend a great deal of time sleeping in the first few days, grandmothers are often useful for babysitting.

The excerpt uses fluffy language, while its not meant to be a technical manual it makes a interesting psychological exercise.

 

Cows have the faculties in the brain that allow them to "feel" (a limbic system in particular), and there are some situations where they show physical signs in internal sensations. In the evolutionary sense, this would be valuable, because consciousness has a lot of "stay-alive" benefit in an unpredictable environment for animals with long life spans and reproduction cycles.

 

I presented that description as the definition of 'ethical', and that is exactly what it is. For you to ascribe that definition to me and label it "naive" is fairly childish, particularly where you present no superior definition.

Childish? No, no, no, you've misread me entirely.

 

Here is what happened: The definition of "ethical" you gave was inadequate, then you described that it implies ethical systems are "subjective" almost by definition. But that isnt correct, in fact it is a very common misconception that has not the least bit of connection with how "ethical" is understood in the academic sense. However, in your post I've quoted, you indicate below that you dont actually hold that definition of ethics to be meaningful - in which case I've misread your intent.

 

If you want a superior way to define "ethical", I would suggest something along the lines of "in accordance to the conclusions derived from ethics; whereas ethics is the investigation into the content of moral principles and virtues, and their justification".

 

Granted the subject of ethics can be complex (particularly in practical application), but when one asks "how is it unethical to kill a cow?", if it is so clearly unethical one might reasonably expect a straight answer within one post.

Which I provided.

 

However, you wanted to know how we can even assume cows are self-aware in the first place. Its not the same question as "how is it unethical to kill a cow", and usually I would consider it red herring - however I figured that you might be genuinely interested in hearing what I have to say, because you've noticed that the moral status of a cow is dependent on certain properties like consciousness and self-awareness.

 

That was the point I was making in my post. If you follow it, you will see that I am pointing out the absurdity of so-called "ethical arguments" outside an objective framework.

Thank you, I had misunderstood you. I read your post as originally declaring ethical judgements as necessarily subjective.

 

No, you sailed right past the point. The point I was making is that an appeal to common practice will not answer the question (for either of us).

I can agree with that.

 

You have stated that ethics are objective facts. If this is the case, and you believe killing a cow to be unethical, there must therefore be an objective fact to support that position.

There certainly are. Their capacity to suffer and hold interests is the objective fact which defines their moral worth - however you've no longer been concerened with the moral implications of awareness, you are focused on whether cows possess some kind of sense of self-awareness.

 

Hopefully, by now, we are on the same level with one another. If not, feel free to ignore anything in this post, and let me know

 

Regarding my earlier question' date=' "how is it unethical to kill a cow?" (which was actually directed at Cap'n Refsmmat, but he seems to be replying using the distinctive strategy of not replying), it may be helpful to use some kind of base level.

To that end we might define why murder is unethical, since this seems to be fairly universally-agreed upon.[/quote']

Somehow, murder just doesnt seem like the fundamental moral axiom I can think of - for instance, does murdering a blade of grass carry the same moral consequences and murdering a person in their sleep?

 

I've asked the question "Why is it wrong to murder", and I've come across a lot of reasons that just arent very good:

* Respect for life isnt a moral imperative, otherwise everyone who washed their hands with anti-baterial soap would be a genocidal maniac.

* Sympathy isnt very good, because there isnt an indication of who we should be sympathetic to

* Being a human doesnt matter (in a hypothetical situation, we would find it very hard to imagine that it is wholly ethical to kill an alien race who came to visit)

* Intelligence is irrelevant, otherwise we would be eating babies and the mentally handicapped

* etc.

 

Taking lives is very serious, but its very unusual that there are very few good explanations for what makes it unethical. In my life, one of the few most genuinely interesting and persuasive explanations has been Peter Singer's "preference utilitarianism". I think this is a good theory (not without its problems however), its does a very good job distinguishing the moral difference between killing sentient and non-sentient beings.

 

Singer basically argues that causing things gratuitous suffering is unethical, and respecting the interests of sentient beings is a moral imperative. People usually dont care for this too much because it doesnt give any special treatment to the preferences or interests of humans for the sake of their humanity - but that isnt a flaw with the theory, its just based on the idea that giving preferencial moral status to something based on its species is no more rational than preferencial moral status based on other morally irrelevant chracteristics like race or gender.

 

That isnt an exhaustive examination of the theory, but its a good place to start.

[Hellbender]

I personally don't see what's so wrong with animal testing.

 

Animals are not our posessions, to use for whatever purpose we see fit whenever we feel like. Thats all I have to say.

[Newtonian]

Well done Hellbender,the guilt trip does appeal to some who are genuinely embarrased,that our species controls the planet and everything on it.By definition of posession,you are correct animals are not ours.However as an animal ourselves(and predators) anything that we require as food is ours to take.I notice people seem to think they have the moral high ground when discussing this subject.However nobody minds a bunch of hyena's ripping a young gazelle to bits(which i guess is quite a painfull ordeal for the gazelle).

I fail to see humans on the whole using animals for whatever purpose we feel fit,or whenever we feel like it.Apart from food,health and work,we dont.Unless your advocating cannabilism

[Hellbender]

Well done Hellbender' date='the guilt trip does appeal to some who are genuinely embarrased,that our species controls the planet and everything on it.By definition of posession,you are correct animals are not ours.However as an animal ourselves(and predators) anything that we require as food is ours to take.I notice people seem to think they have the moral high ground when discussing this subject.However nobody minds a bunch of hyena's ripping a young gazelle to bits(which i guess is quite a painfull ordeal for the gazelle).

I fail to see humans on the whole using animals for whatever purpose we feel fit,or whenever we feel like it.Apart from food,health and work,we dont.Unless your advocating cannabilism[/quote']

 

I wasn't guilt-tripping. that was my opinion. I was stating it for no other reason but to voice my opinion on the subject. I never pretended to take the moral high ground. Humans are predators, and I agree that we can take animals for food. Why not? Animals eat other animals. Although I have a lot of objections and few solutions to the meat industry, I am not a vegetarian. If I had a choice in the matter, i would be an obligate carnivore. Who wants to eat tofu when yo could eat a medium-rare steak? However this forum topic is about animal testing not eating animals. We use them for testing and for recreation, among other things which I object to. These are the uses I was talking about.

[Hellbender]

Unless your advocating cannabilism

 

Yeah I am advocating cannibalism because I think humans shouldn't be so egotistical to assume animals are put here for our benefit. Call me Jeff Dahmer 2.0.

[Newtonian]

However this forum topic is about animal testing[/u'] not eating animals. We use them for testing and for recreation, among other things which I object to. These are the uses I was talking about.

I see now,i misinterpreted your post sorry.I can see the argument for not using them for recreation.

Why do you object to animal testing though?It is only done for our benefit,you dont want your mothers face burnt off when she is applying her makeup do you Jeff?

[Hellbender]

Why do you object to animal testing though?It is only done for our benefit,you dont want your mothers face burnt off when she is applying her makeup do you Jeff?

 

Makeup isn't necessary. You can be healthy and survive without makeup. Its ridiculous that we think it is such a necessity that we must test it out first. I really have no asnwer to this. i wouldn't like to see my mother's face burnt off, but I never said she needs makeup in the first place. It is a "want" not a "need". If a person wants to wear makeup, then I dare say they should be prepared to take the chances. Besides, not to be argumentative (okay, to be) has something like this ever happened?

 

By the way, my name isn't Jeff

[Aardvark]

Sayonara' date='

 

 

If you take a cow, and try to push it off a cliff, it doesnt want to go. It shows physical distress, and anxiety which can be measured by an EEG or similar machine. (Assuming cows can judge depth, of course.)

 

The cow can deduce the consequences of future events, its mental states will be affected and its interests will be modeled with respect to those consequences. In this case, the mental states (distress and anxiety) are evidence that the cow has a sense of self, and an interest to continue its existence.[/quote']

 

The fact that a cow, or any other animal shows a powerful survival instinct doesn't seem to provide any proof of consciousness. That same instinct can be observed in the lower animals who we can all agree are not conscious, such as snails or worms.

 

If you want a superior way to define "ethical"' date=' I would suggest something along the lines of "in accordance to the conclusions derived from ethics; whereas ethics is the investigation into the content of moral principles and virtues, and their justification".[/quote']

 

Your idea that ethics can be established as a system of objective facts is undupported by your argument. As you noted different cultures have different ethical systems. You fail to posite any objective methodology to judge those different systems. Simply stating that one cultures ethical system is wrong does not make it so.

 

I've asked the question "Why is it wrong to murder"' date=' and I've come across a lot of reasons that just arent very good:

* Respect for life isnt a moral imperative, otherwise everyone who washed their hands with anti-baterial soap would be a genocidal maniac.

* Sympathy isnt very good, because there isnt an indication of who we should be sympathetic to

* Being a human doesnt matter (in a hypothetical situation, we would find it very hard to imagine that it is wholly ethical to kill an alien race who came to visit)

* Intelligence is irrelevant, otherwise we would be eating babies and the mentally handicapped

* etc.[/quote']

 

You make some interesting points, but i must disagree with you when you state that being a human being doesn't matter. I would have no problem whatsoever in exterminating an alien race of sentient beings if it was in my interests. I don't understand why you think i should have a problem with this?

 

Taking lives is very serious' date=' but its very unusual that there are very few good explanations for what makes it unethical. In my life, one of the few most genuinely interesting and persuasive explanations has been Peter Singer's "preference utilitarianism". I think this is a good theory (not without its problems however), its does a very good job distinguishing the moral difference between killing sentient and non-sentient beings.

 

Singer basically argues that causing things gratuitous suffering is unethical, and respecting the interests of sentient beings is a moral imperative. People usually dont care for this too much because it doesnt give any special treatment to the preferences or interests of humans for the sake of their humanity - but that isnt a flaw with the theory, its just based on the idea that giving preferencial moral status to something based on its species is no more rational than preferencial moral status based on other morally irrelevant chracteristics like race or gender.[/quote']

 

Peter Singer makes a very good case for basing a code of ethics on sentience/consciousness. But ultimately is that not a subjective value judgement? In the end is that not just as irrational as basing an ethical system on characteristics such as race or sex?