Bioethics in Animal Research

Oh boy,
let's save origins of the universe and mankind for a different thread, but believe it or not there are a LOT of people who disagree with you on that one

Show proof they show self-awareness though. Really. Not instinct, but awareness

 

The concept of evolution is in fact scientifically proven. There is absolutely no point in arguing facts. In addition to the argument of self-awareness, many primates relax when being groomed and individuals of many species actively seek pleasure and avoid pain. There's no need to associate "this body" with "my body" or with "me" (or "I"). Many animals also know the placement in space of parts of their body as they run, jump, perform acrobatics, or move as a coordinated hunting unit or flock without running into one another. They know their body isn't someone else's body. Many studies of self-awareness have used mirrors to assess how visual cues are used. Such studies been effective for captive primates, dolphins and elephants. Although mirror-like visual images are absent in most field situations, it's possible that individuals learn something about themselves from their reflections in water. But, scientists also need to know more about the role of senses other than vision in studies of self-awareness because some animals — for example, rodents — who can distinguish among individuals don't seem to respond to visual images.

 

Scientific process says the experiment must be repeatable. By all means, if you can, please repeat the origin of the universe.
Otherwise, learn that:
Evolution is an unproved theory
Creation is an unproved theory

And they'll stay theories, because due to the Scientific method, we can't prove it either way. I'm not arguing facts, I'm arguing that a theory you personally believe isn't fact. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I eat meat, but I would not kill an animal myself; nor would I be able to watch an animal be killed

 

That’s sounds like a lot of cognitive dissonance.

to the extent humans can recognize reality and truth we can recognize morality.

 

xd

Anyways, in regard to the rest of your post, their ability to recognize themselves and others, or recognize the fact that their body parts are moving doesn’t tie in to them being able to entertain the idea that they have consciousness. Sure, they know they are alive, but they don’t understand what it means for them to be conscious.
Plus, it doesn’t appear that creative and unique thinking has been addressed. You may say “well some primates have painted paintings before,” but I doubt any have shown ability to recognize form or to really understand what they are doing.

Another point that could easily be made is this: Primates, nor dolphins or whatever other very intelligent animals, are part of the world’s diet for the majority. Most consumed animals are chickens, pigs, cows, fish, etc. Could you provide proof of these animals showing any type of creative, or moral (not logical behavior or basic pack mentality) attributes?

 

Legitimately, it's actually impossible. Like, if I asked you to prove to me why murder is wrong, you really couldn't. If you truly think that it's possible to prove right from wrong, i'd like you to explain that to me.

 

None of which have to do with animal rights. All of the things you just listed are to do with overuse of fossil fuels; an archaic means of energy production, which most people would like to avoid in the future anyway. Also, unless the entire world becomes vegan, animals are still killed and packaged at the same rate regardless if you're individually a vegan or not. Honestly, veganism is one of the most passive takes on the situation, as you're simply just ignoring the problem and hoping other people follow your example. If you really want to make a change, be an activist, not a vegan. Also, on the original topic, I'm totally fine with animal testing. It's such a trivial conversation when you make the argument of how terrible it is testing on animals yet wear and eat their products. Even if you yourself don't do those things, other people do. Where do we draw the line with what is okay do due to animals versus what isn't? We can eat them, wear them, make them our pets, but we can't test on them to further human advancement? For thousands of years mankind has dominated the world with intelligence, and animals have all been made subordinate. Yes, we are technically mammals but if you're going to argue that because we are a mammal that we must treat other species with the same respect as we treat humans must have missed out on the past million years of evolution. If it weren't for the vast advancement of science, provided by the very thing you argue against, protecting most humans from natural selection, your kindness would have gotten you killed a long time ago.

 

What an amazing point, why didn't anybody think of this before! Animals must have consented to being eaten by CHOOSING to be edible.

Well done sir, you are a genius.

 

We start by accepting the axiom that action must have reason behind it, this axiom can be established by referencing a variant of argumentation ethics-the very act of arguing or communicating with a person has the grundnorm of this axiom, to argue against this axiom would be a performative contradiction where your actions contradict your words. When this axiom is combined with the subjectivity of values we reach a conclusion where you can only take action that directly effects you and people who share your values. If you were to try and murder me without my agreement you would be making the statement that whatever value underpins your rationalization for murdering me is a value that is objectively true. Voluntary action doesn’t violate this ethic because all participants have implicitly agreed to the values underpinning the given action. From this we get a variant libertarian world of negative liberty and voluntarism. To tie it all back into this conversation imposing limits on what someone can do to an animal in a medical setting is stating the objectivity of the value of animals, because the value of animals isn’t something all parties agree too you would be in violation of this ethic if you would try and impose animal rights legislation on researchers.

The validity of this argument also isn’t consequential to your point. Even if my argument was wrong you would still need to show why it is impossible for an objective ethic to be established. Basing your argument on the lack of valid objective ethics is arguing from ignorance, essentially “the tide goes in, the tide goes out, you can’t explain that, therefore god” but in an animal rights form.

 

We get it, there's a double standard that exists within society. The question isn't just about which part of the double standard should be removed, but also which side you'd more likely go along with. Double standards exist, but not all decisions should be focused on an affirmation vs. negation aspect as systems often profit from collaboration. For example, government shouldn't have no power or it wouldn't have any meaningful functions. At the same time, a government shouldn't be given to much power or it overrules its original function to the point it destroys the social contract between itself and its people and loses support. There needs to be balance.

Your comments on this thread are somewhat comical, but only because they come off as almost satirical. Removing a double standard should require compromise, not just sticking to one strong side.

 

Affirmation/negation is the only metric we have for judging action, judging power Dynamics or flight"fairness" relies on emotional values.

Government power is an applied ethic, it isn't relevant to what I said.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 2, 2018, Original Post Date: Mar 2, 2018 ---

Which specific double standard are you talking about?