Bioethics in Animal Research

Well, you really should. Global temperature has risen six-tenths of a degree in the past 20 years. Population has increased by 1.7 billion people. Sea levels have risen 3 inches and extreme weather in the U.S. has increased by 30 percent. In Greenland and Antarctica, ice sheets have lost 4.9 trillion tons of ice. Before you know it, this planet won't be suit for life.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 26, 2018, Original Post Date: Feb 26, 2018 ---

Even though you aren't concerned with the overall welfare of non-human animals, aren't you willing to accept the environmental benefits of going vegan?

 

The whole debate at it’s base stems from a simple question: do you believe that humans have a higher importance then other animals? Depending on your beliefs, you may say yes; either because you believe humans have souls, or because they are directly aware of their own consciousness. Assuming this is true, animals are lower beings, and the survival of lower beings is less important than higher beings. If you say no-humans are not higher beings-then there is no reason for us not to kill animals. If we aren’t higher beings, we don’t have any moral ultimatum and we can do what we want to survive. I feel that this disproves any argument that we are equal to animals.
In my opinion, animals should be treated as well as is reasonably possible, but in the end I think humans are above animals and that they will always be the highest priority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I understand why you're coming from, but even though I believe that humans are not superior in any way to other animals, I really can't explain my morals. It's actually impossible to explain the concept of morality itself, for it has no actual factual backing. Scientists nor philosophers have been able to discover the true meaning of "good," or why we consider some things to be of inexplicable evil intent and the other set of things to be of pure. I hope nobody takes this the wrong way, but I don't really believe anything is right or wrong. Really, it cannot be proven that murder is wrong, that rape is wrong, that animal cruelty is wrong. But subjectively, I do believe that it's wrong, because it's truly an impulse from the emotion empathy. It's hard to explain why I hold strong on my beliefs when I really have two conflicting opinions on the subject.

 

I don't need to agree with your opinion?

1: Won't happen in my lifetime
2: Ready to die for the last three years it means literally nothing to me.

source...?

 

Thankfully where I live everything is free range. I can taste the difference. Perks of living in the middle of nowhere.

 

Please understand that I wasn't trying to be rude. I just firmly believe that as humans, the main factor to why our environment is actually in such a deteriorating condition, we should share the same mindset in which we want to reverse the damage that we have done.

 

This argument is fallacious because the qualities you listed aren’t inherent to meat eating. I try to eat a lot of game meat which isn’t farmed on a factory, so I am able to eat a diet that includes meat while avoiding subsidizing the destruction of the environment.

You have essentially conceded your argument is based on your feelings, feelings can’t be used to establish morality, therefore your arguments is amoral and you can’t place a moral compulsion on anybody outside yourself.

 

Understandable, but as to me, your morals, as well as most everyone on the planet's morals, stem from initial emotion. I can't explain the concept of morality, and I'm not sure that I'll ever be able to.

 

Lol, this is the 21st century, who even uses "morals" anymore?

 

On the contrary there are numerous moral frameworks that can be derived from logic, and when examined remain logically sound. I obviously think the argument I have is true as well as sound. If what you are saying is true and I can’t provide a logical moral system then the correct moral position is the abdication of any morals: the conclusion would be that rape, murder, theft, etc are not morally wrong. Feelings can never underpin an objectively true argument.

Edit: I suppose I should say their are ethical positions we can arrive at through logic, not moral positions.

 

No, I completely agree with you. As I said earlier, I don't believe anything is actually wrong. Like rape, murder, theft, etc. It's more of a questioning of myself though; why I have two completely contradicting opinions, and why they both stem from the same initital place.

 

I disagree, we can establish ethical positions and theories of what is ought using logic.

 

I think that you're hearing me wrong. I do believe that's possible, but what's impossible is to know what is actually right and wrong. (I mean that from a perspective of morality, not in biological sciences, etc.)

 

there isn't "actually right and wrong"?

 

I believe that we’re all connected in nature and we all share the same energies so it’s not ethical to test chemicals on animals. To me, all life is super precious and worth protecting. If we don’t trust X chemical on humans, then we shouldn’t use animals as our test subjects either. Would you test something potentially life-endangering on your dog? Probably not. Obviously, we share emotional attachments with our pets so maybe you’d say that that’s a poor argument but listen: Would you test who-knows-what on a human that you have no emotional connection to? No. How is that any different than testing on an animal that you haven’t spent any time with? Animals are intelligent and feel things just like us. It’s cruel to abuse their innocence with testing for something that doesn’t have a 100% guarantee to work.

There aught to be other ways to figure out science things. If we can make synthetic solutions, we can make synthetic testing objects as well. There’s no need to test on animals now.

tl;dr I wont support the abuse of animals when there are alternative solutions that don’t harm a soul.

 

I didn't say there wasn't, but I said it's really impossible to know what IS right and what is wrong.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 26, 2018, Original Post Date: Feb 26, 2018 ---

 

I think the belief that humans hold no superiority is a point that may need to be reconsidered, and it seems to me you have provided an example as to why. If animals do not have moral values and humans do, that puts one above the other. Whether or not we decide to treat animals more ethically (which would be ideal), I strongly believe we are the higher beings.

This, in my opinion, is the strongest reason to believe there is some sort of higher entity that set us with a moral compass. Morality is not something that is naturally developed. However, that is another debate for another thread.

There seems to be a contradiction here. If you believe nothing is right or wrong, why would you have an impulse for empathy? Clearly you hold a moral compass. To be broader, clearly humans collectively hold a moral compass. Animals clearly do not. Animals act on their natural survival instincts, impulses, or on impulses imbedded into them by humans.
As a question directed towards anyone: why then would animals be equal to us?


My ultimatum is this:
We are higher beings for the following reasons:
-We are aware of our own consciousness directly (as in we understand the fact that we are conscious)
-We have a moral compass that we collectively follow based on either pure emotional impulses or religious beliefs/soul
-We have a creative mind that possesses the ability to think unique thoughts.

Animals are lower beings for the following reasons:
-By all of our means and by simple deduction, we know that animals are not aware of what consciousness is or that they are conscious
-They do not have a moral compass or emotional impulse. They act on natural impulse and instinct, or on trained impulses.
-They do not have creative minds.

Since we are higher beings with a sense of consciousness and with a moral compass, we understand that the life of a human is more important, since human lives hold emotional value and creative thought. Since we have this emotional compass, we have a desire to please other humans and lower beings. In the end however, we understand that lower beings are expendable, whereas every human possesses a unique consciousness which is not expendable. Therefore, if we must expend lower beings in order to sustain beings with a sense of consciousness and creative and moral thought, so be it.

I am open for anyone to present any problems they see in this or any additions.

 

The problem with this is that we are not the only species to hold a moral compass, because we aren't the only species who are in themselves self-aware or able to recognize our own conscience. There are many examples of animals demonstrating ostensibly compassionate or empathetic behaviors toward other animals, including humans. In one experiment, hungry rhesus monkeys refused to electrically shock their fellow monkeys, even when it meant getting food for themselves. In another study, a female gorilla named Binti Jua rescued an unconscious 3-year-old (human) boy who had fallen into her enclosure at the Brookline Zoo in Illinois, protecting the child from other gorillas and even calling for human help. And when a car hit and injured a dog on a busy Chilean freeway several years ago, its canine compatriot dodged traffic, risking its life to drag the unconscious dog to safety.

But I mean, what sort of instinct is truly involved in instances such as these? Are these actions instinctive, or are they guided by a true moral compass? If this is the case, then morals must be factually based, because they are shared between multiple species of animals, including non-human ones.

 

No we most definitely are. Proof otherwise?

Baby protecting instinct =/= morals

 

Are you not aware that we have evolved from primates, who also share a sense of self-awareness? Also, I wasn't using that as proof for non-human animals having a moral compass. I was just saying that it might be possible.