Kyo

It's pointless to argue medical testing/cosmetic testing at all, really. How is cosmetic testing worse than medical testing? Because one we don't need and one we do? Do we 'need' SUVs? Do we 'need' shopping malls, sprawling cities, massive sports arenas and stadiums? Do we 'need' to have our 16-oz steak every night?

You can't argue that medical testing is 'right' and cosmetic testing is somehow 'wrong', because they're based on the same human attitude - animals are just a means to an end. We domesticate and slaughter them, pave over their habitats, hunt them and slaughter them for recreation, etc.

To clarify, it's like a tyrant telling his citizens, "You all belong to me. I will take all of your possessions and land, and I will kill you whenever I wish. But I won't rape your women."

__________________
Sure I have a heart; it's floating in a jar in my closet, along with my tonsils, my appendix, and all of the other useless organs I ripped out.

Xell101

Yes I can, there are many attitudes which are human, you seem to grasp only the ones in direct opposition to yours.

JSD

I have no problem with testing on animals for medical research. Better them than me!

filtherton

If nature is such a precarious balancing act, how did such a scale tipping species such as ourselves come about? Is it because we are better suited to survival? I don't know how else you'd define the fact that the human race has flourished at the expense of all other species. How else can you explain us? Survival of the fittest until one species become too fit and destroys the planet by overunning it? Isn't what we are doing just the natural course of things? Maybe earth knocks us off of the pedestal it put us on, maybe not. It doesn't matter for this discussion. Our "fitness" brought us here. In any case, how does animal medical testing disallow a sustainable ecosystem?

Why are we not above animals? You said before that eating meat is allright, isn't killing another animal to fill your belly put you clearly in the "more important than the animal" category? I think humans are more important because i am human. Call it speciocentricism or whatever. It is natural. Humans like all animals will do what they feel is in their best interest. The fact that you are alive today is a testament to the fact that you value your own life more than the life of an animal.

Granting your own species preferential treatment is right. What is unright about it? Every species does it, calling it a "habit" is innacurate. That's like saying that survival is merely habitual. I think that humans are generally very irresponsible when it comes to dealing with the natural world, but even the most responsible of behavior would result in the prioritization of our species, and the "habit" of putting our survival above another's. If we didn't do it cannibalism would be huge. By saying it is wrong you are attempting to invalidate the way the natural world works. Which doesn't seem right to me.

Wooohooo morals. Who is right, The homophobic christian or the sinning homosexual? The murdering pregnancy terminater or the idle fanatics who stalk them? While your sorting that out and getting that all nailed down, no doubt ending up with the "right" set of morals, i'll be doing what i think is justified.

Why wasn't it okay? They killed off nearly three thousand people who were all putting themselves on a higher level than animals. Think of all the animals who will be saved just because those people aren't gonna be here leaching resources from the planet. (sarcasm). You should've compared my argument to Hitler's. That is the best way to prove your point ever.

filtherton

Righ back atcha!

You're right, they share the same attitude- that the survival and progress of humanity is more important than keeping the status quo- in their behavior towards nature. However there is nothing wrong with that attitude at its core because the desire for survival generally outweighs all else for any species. Aside from that attitude, there is little else in common. The problems that result from deforestation, pollution, roads, hunting and waste disposal have already or most likely will forever alter our world for the worse. They are all the result of careless attitudes and putting profit and convenience now ahead of a survivable future. Animal testing also has something to do with profit and convenience, but also the desire to save lives. The results of animal medical testing will further our understanding in too many ways to name. They also have the potential to save and/or improve the lives of every single person. Your life has already been enhanced by the results of animal testing. How has your life, or the environment been harmed by animal testing?

I can know it is right, just as you can know it is wrong. I've been telling you why i think it is right, while i still don't know why you think it is wrong, other than the "I don't like humanity's bad attitude". If you're going to argue that, maybe you should just do the world and all the animals a huge favor and kill as many people as possible, cause while our ability to be responsible as a species may develop, that attitude is never going to change.

Pulling the "hitler" card was pretty original too. As long as we are making terrible accusations, by your logic hitler was fine as long as he killed his own species insted of animals. I mean, think of all of the animals his victims would have subjugated unjustly had they been allowed to live.

Peryn

Uhh, what evolution books have you been reading? Evolution is , in its nature, directed. It directs each and every species to further their survival in reaction to their surrounding. If we could kill off and maintian a complete and total lack of vegetation on this planet we could forcefully direct evolution. Assuming any species could live wihtout plant life, we would force that/those species to adapt and evolve to life without plants. We would direct every life on this planet to change.

Please explain how evolution is not directed. We didn't evolve to walk upright out of a freak coincedince. Fish that live in water didn't just get lucky enough to be able to breath in it. Monkeys werent just a random animal with the ability to climb in the trees...

__________________
Dont cry kid, It's not your fault you suck.

MuadDib

One of the basic tenents of evolution is that there is no goal or point to it. It isn't directed at making better species and it doesn't mean that species that survived are better. All it means is that something changed and that change didn't favor them.

We didn't evolve to walk upright. There was a geneitc mutation that led to speciation where some walked upright and some did not. Fish in the water DID get lucky and a mutation occurred that allowed them to breathe air and water and further mutation led some to lose the ability to breathe water. And, yes, monkeys were just random animals that could climb trees.

I want to know what biology/evolution book you are reading that led you to believe that the theory of evolution is directed by some goal or is headed to some end to make the best species possible. The giraffe didn't suddenly realize that eating plants in high trees would be a good idea and decide to grow a long neck. What causes evolution is completely random mutation and small amounts of environmental change. Genetic mutations occur, most are bad and the animals that get them die, some are benign and go on, and some are advantageous which gives the bearers an advantage over the previous specices from which it derived and the old dies out. Also through generations of breeding the mutations become so great and different that cross breeding is no long possible.

If this is honestly not the way you understand evolution and you learned it was a continual process leading to greater complexity and perfection then I encourage you to go to google and look up Charles Darwin and Jean Bapitiste Lamarck. Lamarck proposed the directed concept of evolution which is a very common misconception and the scientific community smacked him down and claimed Darwin's random evolution the only one that really made sense.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

MuadDib

Happy (or rather unhappy) chance.The cockroach is better suited to survive than us. It has been around longer and will likely be here long after we are gone. The fact is that what we are doing is inherently unnatural. While there have been other species in the spot light before none in history have ever been so detremental to the planet. Nature, outside of us, has always been balanced with the life and death of individual animals all pretty much working out to continue life and well being for all species. Finally, animal medical testing does not itself directly disallow for a sustainable ecosystem. However, the underlying concept that allows such behavior (specifically that it is acceptable/right/natural for us to play God over species and that we are better than them) is what is destroying our ecosystem. If we treated other life on this planet with the equalityand respect it was due then the ecosystem nor animal testing would be an issue.

As I said, killing is natural. It isn't like death doesn't occur in nature. However, in nature animals take their fill to survive, they do not horde or destroy for sport or any other reason besides to eat and protect from direct offense. First, we don't have to eat meat to live therefore its unnecessary and cruel. Second, the ability to destroy something does not make you better than it. Thirst, its called anthropicentrism, its is not to be confused with the alleged selfish gene that makes you want to propigate your own gene line (this is in serious question as of late and it looks like its false) other animals in nature live in symbiosis and and help other species... no animals are better because of our existence. Finally, there is nothing to say I wouldn't be alive if animals were treated equally that logic focuses on the red tooth and claw approach to nature which isn't the predominant theory.


Its not right to protect your species life. However, ouor species is not going to die out without medical testing on animals. However, it does endanger the whole of other species through our attitudes and through overpopulation and technilogical pollution. The fact is we can test medicine without endanger other species and without furthering the mindset that its okay to act above nature... ever

There is a difference between morals, ethics, and values. It is a fine line, but simply doing what you think is justified is making a value judgement. My point is that you can't just blow off an argument because it is an ethical argument. All argumentation and discourse is based on certain value decisions. Without acknowledging that an ethical judgement is part of every decision then you are only fooling yourself.

Sarcasm appreciated. But I never said all sinners should be killed. The answer isn't killing people, I never proposed it was, and you know as well as I do it wasn't what I was saying. The point is that the ability to do something doesn't make it justified or right. You can apply it to Hitler, the Al Queda, Wounded Knee, or your mom making you eat your greens. Unfortunately, the point of making an example is to apply your argument to something familiar to others so they understand it. I think WTC is something we can all recognize as wrong and the simple fact that it happened didn't make it right.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Kyo

filtherton, it seems like you skim the comments until you find a statement you don't like, pull that one out by itself, and then try to refute it while not taking the rest of the paragraph or context into consideration. The fact that you'd suggest, even sarcastically, that environmentalists should go out and kill as many humans as possible to save the environment indicates that you've missed the point of my argument entirely. If you understood what I was trying to say, most of your counterarguments wouldn't make much sense to you.

Then again, I suppose that's exactly what you're thinking about my views too.

And you'll note that you can't actually refute the analogy drawn between your argument and the mentality of dictators - you simply spew sarcasm back at us - "well, hitler killed lots of evil humans, so you should all be happy." Tell me why your argument isn't like Hitler's? He preferred his master race to everyone else. We prefer humans to everyone else. "It is natural for the superior to take advantage of the inferior?" - this is what I read your argument as.

Regardless, this isn't getting us anywhere - no one is presenting any new arguments, only corollaries to what they have already argued or thinly-veiled insults (*raises hand* guilty). Either that, or regurgitating the same idea phrased differently.

I'm going to sum up what I think, and that'll be it:

- Morality/Ethics are no part of the environmental status quo. What we do to animals is neither 'right' nor 'wrong', it just is. While I would like humanity to be more responsible, it isn't going to happen because humans like their comfortable lifestyles too much.

- Killing a human and killing an animal are not as far apart as most would like to think. We can't prove that a human life is worth more - we just naturally value ourselves more. Therefore, from a moral standpoint, there is no difference between killing animals and killing humans. If you believe killing humans is ethically wrong, you must necessarily believe killing animals is ethically wrong.

- Arguing medical testing or cosmetic testing is beside the point. The current human attitude is that animals are a natural resource, like oil, iron ore, or wood. Once a tree has been cut down, do we really care what happens to it? Does it really matter to the petroleum industry where you burn their oil, as long as you pay for it? Once we've decided to use the animal, does it matter if we're going to butcher it for meat, skin it for a woman's coat, or test lipstick on it? It's just a commodity, after all.

- To wrap up on this particular issue, given our treatment of nature up to the modern era, both medical and cosmetic testing on animals is a logical progression. The common defenses for what we have already done to nature apply to everything else we want to do - we are the masters of the planet, therefore we can do whatever we want. Cosmetic testing, medical testing, recreational torture, etc. We can do it all - for no more reason than that we are in control.

And finally, I suggest the following reading:
- Environmental Ethics - An Introduction ot Environmental Philosophy by Joseph R. Des Jardins
- Environmental Ethics - Divergence and Convergence by Richard G. Botzler and Susan J. Armstrong

The second book is especially useful, as it is a compilation of famous essays from prominent environmentalists on both sides of the issue. They support and counter arguments such as why the Judeo-Christian ethic is bad for nature and essentially responsible for the shape the planet is in, how environmentalism differs in various regions of the world, and whether or not humans should care about nature at all.

We're never going to see eye-to-eye, because of a fundamental difference in opinion of where humans stand in the larger picture. In other words - we're arguing exactly opposite points from the foundation up. The way an aetheist might argue with a Christian - it's easy to see that neither is going to get anywhere.

I wish I could say it has been a good discussion, but I don't like to lie. Ethical discussions have always left a bad taste in my mouth.

__________________
Sure I have a heart; it's floating in a jar in my closet, along with my tonsils, my appendix, and all of the other useless organs I ripped out.

Peryn

I kind of enjoy animal testing arguments. Its always interesting to me to see how people can be against it, yet take so much advantage of it. I always am intrigued by finding out what is going through someones head when they would not slay something else to save their own. I dont agree with them and will try my darndest to change their opinion, ill admit, but its interesting and intriguing to see their viewpoint nonetheless.

as for the environmentalist point this thread has shifted toward, i cant even get myself to sit down and look at most environmentalist writings, as i get too frustrated and cant take them seriously. Anyone that thinks we have the power to detroy the planet, and are going to, i find to be remarkable ignorant and arrogant. It frustrates me to no end. Unfortunately, the large majority of the environmentalists out there have this mentality and have no idea what is really going on, and what the actual resutls of it can be.

__________________
Dont cry kid, It's not your fault you suck.

Conclamo Ludus

What about killing plants? Is that ethically okay? Or is that just as bad too? They are "alive" aren't they?

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues

filtherton

I agree that we are never going to agree.
I understand your points, at least i understand them well enough so as not to have to resort to comparing you to hitler or al quaeda unprovoked. I just tried to flip it back onto you so you could see how irrational and childish such accusations are.
As for that difference from hitler or al quaeda, i'm not advocating genocide, or the mass slaughter of people. Unless, al quaeda has some sort of animal bunker it crashed planes into, that example is underhanded and irrelevant. You're also delusional if you compare animal testing to genocide. My entire argument is based on the idea that human life is very important, more important than animal life.
You can't see any difference between animals and humans, which is why you can't understand how hitler doesn't apply to my argument.
I do think we should be responsible with nature, but i don't think animal testing is irresponsible.

Also, please don't attempt to point out incosistencies in morality, because morality is very hard to define. Despite your definition of morals and ethics, I can think that killing animals is alright but humans killing humans is not and still be moral. I can do the same thing and still be ethical too. You seem to wave these words around like there is only one set of morals and ethics. That somehow there is never an exception or that centextual ethics don't exist.

Maud, you seem to think that if we could just get rid of this attitude that humans have towards nature that all will be well. I agree that humanity has been irresponsible in its dealings with the world at large, but the attitude of which you speak is not the cause of that. Anyways "red tooth claw" or no, you have clearly put youself above animals just because you are alive today.

While it is undeniable that humanity has had an effect on the status quo of this planet, we have not done anything wholly unnatural. That is, unless you believe in creationism or the intriguing idea of intelligent design, as a species we are behaving the same way any other species in our position would.
That we are actually destroying the planet is as of yet completely unsubstantiated. I'm not saying that i don't belive in things like global warming, we are undeniably and irreparably changing the status quo of this planet. What i'm saying is that until the US finishes production on the death star, we can be pretty sure that this planet will be around long after we are gone. This "fragile balance" you speak of exists, but it will exist long after we are gone. The world didn't end with the dinosaurs either, it has also survived numerous ice ages.