Animal Testing- yes or no?
 

I'm curious as to how everyone feels about animal testing, specifically medical as opposed to cosmetic? I think that it can be justified for the good of humanity. What do you think? I am likely going to be going to school for biomedical engineering next year and depending on where i end up if i follow through i might be working with animals. Basically I just want to know what the arguments are for or against?

life of a human > life of an animal

it does get tricky when you start talking about life-enhancing rather than life-preserving medicine. But if you're going to draw the line there, is it equally wrong to eat more meat than you need to survive comfortably?

I am against animal testing for cosmetics and such, but I think it's a necessary evil when it comes to pharmaceuticals. I think we should make every effort to use alternatives, but there are some times when you just can't justify risking human life. Sad but true.

Re: maximus' question about eating meat: That's a slightly different ethical can of worms from animal testing, since it's arguable that we're part of the food chain and eating meat is a natural thing (lots of vegetarians would argue with me about this; having been a vegetarian for environmental reasons for 3 years, though, I'm still not convinced that eating meat is cruel). Animal testing, however, is a response to a human-created situation: the need/desire for safe life-enhancing or life-saving substances.

Cosmetics testing is just evil.

We don't need to kill or maim and otherwise torture animals either. We have huge populations of criminals, and yes I am serious, we should be testing on them.

Not all criminals. I would only advocate medical testing be done on violent felons. Rapes, murders, Those kinds.

Not to mention our computer modeling for chemicals is at the point where live testing other than the final human guinea pigs before approval will soon be no longer needed.

Medical there is almost no arguement, it's fine.

Cosmetics thought should be legal, just let the consumers speak with their dollars if they don't like the way a product is made, to make this more obvious, force companies to put "Tested on Animals" in extremely contrasting colors so it sticks out.

Yes to medical, no to cosmetical.

Oh trust me there is, and you are about to hear it. Testing on animals is just another way that the humanity expresses its disdain for the Earth and life in general. Animals have just as much right to life as humans do. Almost all of humanity takes for granted that humanity is of greater worth, but there is no logical reason to believe such. The only remotely convincing argument is that humanity is worth more because of our ability to reason and because we are self aware. Of course, this is exactly like saying people have souls but animals don't. Or to strike the point home, it is like saying that slavery is justified because white people are worth more than black people. All three arguments are entirely unprovable because all three try to justify one groups status over the other by quantifying some immeasurable that can't be proven to even exist in the first place. Our common stance that we are better than animals perpetuates our cultures method of objectifying everything from nature to other cultures. We devalue animals, trees, Arabs, Latinos, the earth, our neighbors, etc. And we do so because our culture is built upon not feeling or even acknowledging the pain of others out of a necessity to survive. Now this isn't to say that we shouldn't eat meat or keep pets. What it is to say is that we shouldn't test cosmetics or medicine on them. We shouldn't pump farm animals full of chemicals and drugs so that they can do nothing but get fat and become good eating. We should treat all life as an end within itself and not some means to achieve our ends. As long as that is acknowledged then life can take its course and we can eat meat and what not but with as much respect for the sacrifice of what we eat as feeling of self importance.

I'm opposed to testing on animals for both purposes, but I dont see a valuable alternative for medical testing.

I just hope that they are doing it as little as possible. Kinda makes me sad to think that animals are dying/suffering because of me.

I'm sorry. I don't see how that is insulting or joking.

They are people with no respect for the law and as such give up their rights.

As a measure of paying back society for their ills, violent felons should be forced, or if you want, coerced with the treat of reduced jail time to submit themselves to medical testing.

I don't see why people who advocate testing on animals, (read MaudDib's thoughts on the subject above) is less insulting or joking than what I said.

Please tell me why that is something unacceptable to bring up in a debate forum.

I am seriously not trying to hijack this thread, but this a question for Muad... To the point, you with Wellstone and Kinich(sp?) in your sig, how do you justify all you just spoke but are for abortion? I assume your going to play the "its not human card", but I don't buy it, when women "Terminate" a pregenency the fetus has a heartbeat and brain waves. Further more what do you feel about stem cells? I guess if any other liberals/tree huggers wanna chime in feel free, I am genuinely interested on how you could possibly justify all of this.

Truly sorry for the hijack, but I had to jump at the oppurtunity to ask the question.

Depends on how frivolously the 'stuff' will be used, if it is something for an artificial heart or cancer treatment, the animals aren't quite as...I suppose "sentient", as we are yet so they are preferable to a human when testing things, but for lip stick, nail polish remover.

As for convicts, I think sociopathic murders and absolutely vile people (not your run of the mill violent inmate, the truly detestable nonfunctional human) should be subject to testing when it makes sense, instead of paying a random guy with money issues $500 to take the mystery fluid, get a convict, things of that sort, not removing his eye lids and tear ducts followed by complete immobilization for testing of eye damaging substances.

We don't have a disdain for the Earth and life in general. We seem to be subjugating nature. All those who are not profecient at doing such is primitive or savage, we defy the natural order of things since we are better, we except from the choas that is mother nature, we are more deserving of life, if we need land, we shall cut down the mighty woods and grow food so that our species may proliferate! *insert maniacle laugh* I know it isn't a very good, but our actions aren't manifestations of some kind of hate, more or less the result of thinking ourselves better.

Agreed.

Superbelt,

Misunderstanding.

Check you PM's.

I agree, but I would like to say that some television shows should be watched by animals for a season first, just to see how their behavior changes.

Definitely yes for medical testing.

Thanks for the input everyone.
I think medical is justified because it save human live. I know that some people put the same value on animal and human lives. I'm curious then, if given the choice to save the life of your child or your cat, what would you choose? Since nature seems to emphasize the value of one's own species over all others, it seems that if you were a believer in nature's apparent priorities, you'd value the life of a random human over that of a random animal. I'm not saying that you don't need to act responsibly when consuming the world's resources and interacting with its creatures, only that you should because it is in humanity's best interest to do so. Let's be clear, nature doesn't give damn if you live or die. Nature puts the onus on you for that.
I'm inna hurry, more later.

i fail to see how anyone can be against animal testing for medical reasons and not be completely hipocritical. The results from animal testing are incredible. Have you ever been to teh dentist? Every dental drug or procedure or whatever is almost always tried on animals first. Dogs specifically i believe because their dental structure most closely resembles our own. Do you really want to be the one to sit down in the chair and have the dentist say "I hope this painkiller helps... we have no idea"? No, you want to go to the dentist for a toothache, get some novacaine and have him fix it.

If you honestly think you can go through life without using an animal-tested product you are fooling yourself. Ever had a shot? Taken flu medicine? Dental work? Had any anestheshia? Caugh syrup? Allergy medication? Birth control pills? Aspriine? Tylenol?

Anything you take to affect your health has been rigorously tested on animals. If not that particular brand, then another brand from which they took there product, or the research someone ELSE did leading up to them creating it. Any FDA approved drug has been tested on more animals for longer than you can imagine.

Animal tested drugs saved my sisters life when she was a child and went to the hospital. Anyone who tells me they would rather let a loved one die and brutally murder an animal with their bare hands is full of shit. Thats all there is to it. Hell, you would probably even rip a dozen rabbbits apart by hand, if you knew it would give your mother her life back. Dont even begin to think i will believe you if you say you are against medical testing on animals and think there should be another way. Our testing on animals is Darwinism at its best.

Wouldn't that be poetic justice, force a hardened criminal to see if that lipstick gives him a rash. Do it, they're both nearly worthless masses of energy, a bunny is so much cuter though.

I'm all for testing on animals for any reason. I'm not a fan of animals, and I could care less how they die. I'm all for torturing criminals with tests, also. Teach 'em a lesson.

Mojo:

Valid and very astute question. Where I think there is a break down in understanding is that in your formulation you (along with many others) assume being pro choice is the same as being pro abortion. This isn't the case. I have never met anyone who was pro abortion. I think everyone wants alternatives to prevent the need for abortions. For me being pro choice isn't about a womans decision to terminate her pregnancy as much as it is about her right to make that choice. The right to choose is about equal rights and womens' value in society. Would it be considered even remotely acceptable for the government, or anyone for that matter, to tell a man what he can do to his body? For example, would it be acceptable for the government to outlaw masturbation because sperm are potential lives? I know the example isn't directly relational but that just furthers the point that pregnancy is a uniquely female experience and as part of the female body the growing zygote/fetus/child her decision to make. If it were up to me I would rarely encourage a woman to have an abortion, but my part in the decision ends at advising and I realize that. I honestly pray that one day abortion won't be an issue because of responsible sexual practices or other means, but in the mean time I can not support any decision to take the freedom to determine the fate of their own body away from women. To do so would be to trivialize their lives as much as it would give greater meaning to the child life.

it's ok if it has a real chance for providing useful information, but not like dogs smoking cigarettes or monkey's playing the piano

Actually, activists have recently obtained stolen laboratory photos of just the kind of horrible testing on dogs you're describing:








.
.
.
.
****WARNING, STRONG CONTENT AHEAD****
.
.
.
.


















http://www.coteindustries.com/dogs/images/dogs1.jpg

Hell no!! Just because they cant fight back or yell and scream like we do, does not mean you can treat them any different? No , animals are jsut like family to many millions of families. How would you feel if your mom or brother were taken in for testing? We have laws against cruel and unusual punishment right? then why dont those apply to everything living? Animals deserve to have rights to, and as a species that thinks its more advanced than any other race we should realize that there are other alternatives and that just because it saves money in the end it might not be good mentally for the workers and the poor animals.

Do the people who test things on animals have pets???

fallen_angel,

I take it then that you won't be partaking of any modern medical advances in protest of this cruelty, right?

:D

Just because fallen_angel might unknowingly take advantage of a medical advancement due to animal cruelty doesn't mean he/she endorses it. If that were that case just about every American would be writing thank you notes to the third reich for their successful progress in the area of medicine thanks to testing on jews.

I want to know if, given the choice, fallen_angel would rather see his puppy die or his mom, or his brother, or what?

Animals may be just like family to billions of people, but they are also just like food to billions of people, and just like clothing to billions of people. I think many researchers who conduct tests on animals do have pets. Why wouldn't they? Many meat eaters have pets. Survival of the fittest.

Animals have less rights than humans because they are not humans. We are programmed by nature to value our own species more than other species. Name me one other species who gives a goddamn about the survival of another species? It seems pretty obvious to me that nature doesn't give a damn about us, or any other carbon based life form, for that matter.

Fallen_Angel....are you trying to honestly tell me that you wouldn't kill your own pets if you knew it could save a family member (not the pet's) life? If you honestly believe that than i am glad i am not a close freind or family member of yours. Any rational or emotional person would allow an animal to die in order to save someone they care about.

Its easy to be against medical testing on animals until you need help. Chances are youd have been crippled or killed by polio or smallpox if it weren't for those drugs being tested on rats or hampsters or rabbits. Everyone would love to be able to adequately test new advancements in medicine without having to harm or endanger any animal (cept maybe rats....i HATE rats...). But until someone can come up with a more freindly and cute way to do it, this is teh best method we have.

Have you ever killed a whole line of ants? Ill bet absolutely no new or useful information came from it. Ill bet you didn't even think of the help that could come from learning how they reacted to teh Raid and how they died. And why? because they are not "cute". Whos to say we should spare the rabbits and kill the ants just for fun. Rabbits are at least useful. Killing some sentient species and protecting another is exactly what you wanted to stop in saving the rabbits and rats, but ill bet you all the money i have that you have killed an ant or a cockroach and not even thought about it. Ill bet you have never complained about the ants life when the little kid down the street is burning it with a magnifying glass just for kicks.

In short, all life isn't made equally. You cant save all the animals, or justify only saving teh cute ones. At least we can use their deaths or bodily reactions to improve our quality of life, and maybe even the life of our pets or other cute animals you object to being harmed.

- Survival of the fittest is dangerous. Apply it to humanity to achieve Hitler on a much, much broader scale.

- It is impossible for humanity to argue against itself. If animals have equal rights, then there should be no problem with animals eating humans - eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. It is natural for animals to eat other animals, after all.

- We have destroyed and raped our way across the planet. Our countless acres of concrete and asphalt are paved over forests and flatlands where plants and animals used to live. Each human produces more waste, uses more resources, and takes up more space than any other animal on the planet. Medical testing on animals is the proverbial microscopic tip of the iceberg. We've already fucked this planet a million ways to sunday.

- There can be no pretense about it. We have no moral high ground. We butcher millions of farm animals a year, test our cosmetics and medicines on animals, pollute, deforest, strip-mine, and otherwise rape the planet because we can. We do it because we are in a position of power to do so, and because it benefits us in the short-term (the long term is very much in debate). There isn't any way to argue that we are somehow morally 'right' in butchering animals so that 80 million families can have beef for dinner. That's just the way things are.

- Abortion is a tricky issue. Consider this situation: a mother can either birth a child and die in the process, or she can abort the child and live. Which is 'correct'? How do you measure which life is more precious? And where exactly does a 'child' begin? At the moment of conception? When the spinal cord has formed? When? Do not, under any circumstances, assume that the abortion issue and environmentalism are related. In one, we debate the worth of human life against the worth of non-human life. In the other, we debate the worth of human life against the lives and wishes of other humans - the two are very different topics.

" There isn't any way to argue that we are somehow morally 'right' in butchering animals so that 80 million families can have beef for dinner. That's just the way things are.
"

Its called evolution and teh food chain. We are on top of the food chain. Does that mean we should not eat anything below us? Also, humans have evolved so we are meant to eat other animals. I dont remember the exact names off the top of my head, but there are certain necessary proteins that humans simply do not produce. We get them by eating other animals that do. Also, see those pointy teeth in the corner of your mouth? And those ones in the front? Those weren't designed to eat lettuce...

If we can produce and kill animals to eat, why not get an even greater good from their lives and deaths and learn to save ourselves?

Survival of the fittest has been applied to humanity since the beginning, and has gotten us this far. Survival of the fittest isn't dangerous, humanity is dangerous.

While this seems irrelevant to the topic, I think you give the human race too much credit. You make it sound as we could possibly destroy this planet. Regardless of whether this "homo sapiens" thing pans out, i can assure you the earth will be around long after we are gone. I agree that we are destroying the planet's ability to sustain us, but up to this point do you think it could've happened any other way? I think that right now, in many ways, we're acting like there is no tomorrow, because it is not in our nature to act any differently.

I think morality and the moral high ground is irrelevant. You could also argue that it is immoral to choose the lives of animals over humans. I'm not concerned with the morality right now, because discussions of morality usually just end up being a flamefest of self righteousness. I'm arguing that it is counter to the way nature seems to be set up for us not to kill animals to save humans when it suits us. I think regardless of morality, medical animal testing is ethically sound.
I agree with you that some of our actions in will probably prove to be unsustainable in the long run, but I doubt medical animal testing will be one of those things.

The Planet will kill us off long before we can destroy it...

We evolved to be inventive.

What you are essentially claiming is that the 'status quo' represents what is morally correct - we came out on top, therefore we should be on top; might makes right. I'm not a vegetarian - I like my beef as much as the next guy. My point is that you can't argue from a ethical standpoint that what we are doing is somehow correct - it's just what we're doing. It's called being selfish. Humans >> animals, because we say so. Period.

No, it hasn't really. Otherwise, this debate on medical testing would be irrelevant. We wouldn't bother healing the people that are going to die anyway - it is a waste of resources. We wouldn't bother keeping old people alive, which is also a waste of resources. The genetically inferior would constantly be dying - that isn't happening. In the interest of human society we're keeping alive the people that 'should' be dead, from a biological standpoint.

I'm not giving any more credit than we're due - but you're right, it isn't very relevant - except that it shows how medical testing just logically follows from all of the other things we've been doing. We've already flattened the planet beneath our heels, domesticate and slaughter millions of animals a year, what's a little medical testing? Sure, my comment is irrelevant, except that it demonstrates how debating medical testing completely misses the point. This is just a minor, minor part of the greater human/nature condition.

Hmm ... morality doesn't matter ... except that 'medical animal testing is ethically sound'. Considering that ethics is defined as 'Moral principles or practice' by Websters's dictionary, I don't see how this makes any sense whatsoever.

Medical testing on animals happens. We benefit from it, the same way we get beef from animals, clear forests to build our shopping malls, and basically do whatever we want with the planet to suit our needs. You can't argue that any of this is ethical - people have tried long and hard to do it and nobody has been able to pull it off yet.

Don't get me wrong. I like big houses. I like having modern medicine. I don't like SUVs - but I like cars. I am all in favor of humanity. But I don't like that people run around with the illusion that somehow they are morally entitled to do what we, as a race, do. We do it because we can - because we are not going to let some stupid animals stand in our way. We're humans, by God, and we are going to do whatever it takes to get what we want.

Sound familiar?

Heres your problem, you keep basing it on not being ethical or moral. You cant prove or disprove morality. You cant argue any of this from an ethical standpoint, as it is all relative and opinionated. Nobody can prove murder is wrong. What makes it wrong? You kill someone else and now you dont have to compete with that person. Murder is an excellent idea. Less competition leads to more resources for me. Excellent. I think im am going to murder half my town and take their money, then enjoy the rest of my life, until i think someone else should die. Not a very good example, but what is wrong with that? Why shouldn't i kill anyone, it will help me tons. Sounds like a good plan for me. "But murder is wrong". Why? What makes up ethics? Opinions. One person may totally condone murder and rape and whatnot while one person can love it. Its all a matter of opinion.


You cant argue against eating meat or animal testing with ethics because there are no fact involved. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. Logically, you can argue one way or another. Logically, selfishness and the idea of human superiority makes sense.


I guess im still not really sure where you stand. You seem to be against the ethics of it all, yet you show how it makes sense and why we should continue. You seem against it, yet you continually claim you like it.


Im not trying to flame you, just trying to understand where you stand and what your trying to say.

I guess my point is that you cant argue it ISNT ethical either. You can rarely argue ethics with any logic or sense to back it up.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the word "ethics" was something other than a synonym for morals. I'm a dunce, please disregard my statements of ethics.

Back to my point, why is medical animal testing immoral? You could compare it to deforestation and consumerism, you'd be completely missing the point. Animal testing is nothing like destroying the planet. I think you'd have a hard time convincing me that it harms anything but the test subject. Its not the tip of the iceberg, it ain't even in the same ocean. Tell me how the impact of animal testing is even remotely close to the impact of global deforestation, or the depletion of our ozone. The fact is that medical testing saves lives. It is also completely sustainable. We can be fairly sure that we will never run out of rats and despite what is probably a lengthly history of medical animal testing, we still need Bob Barker to remind us to have our pets spayed or neutered because there are so many of those fuckers running around.


You make it sound like we owe these animals something. Like we should be ashamed. We do it because we can, and because it makes sense, and because that is how the world works. It not something that is new with humanity either. Any other species, given the choice, will put its own interests in front of another species' interest.

This debate on medical testing is irrelevant because they have actually been testing all types of things on animals for quite some time.
From an opportunity cost perspective we heal the sick because it costs a lot of resources to socialize children into adulthood and people dying prematurely is generally a bigger waste than figuring out how to cure them. We keep the old around because they are generally worth the resources they consume because they help raise the grandchildren. These people are worth more alive than dead. These examples are both oversimplified, but true nonetheless.
As for survival of the fittest, i'm pretty sure that if you believe in evolution you have to acknowledge the fact that natural selection is always in full effect.

The staus quo represents millions of years of evolution. There are no morals in evolution. I too get sad when i see the lion kill the sweet, innocent gazelle on the discovery channel, but i also realize that nature(of which we are a product) could care less about fairness and morality. Might makes right may seem immoral, and in the context of intrahuman interaction most people would agree that it is. However, every species, except for the ones on the bottom of the food chain, owes a lot to "might makes right." You could call it selfish, but you could call it nature too. Everythng animal is alive is alive because something else died to feed it.

1) Survival of the fittest has not been around since day one. It is no way formulaic to evolution and was an adaptation for Social Darwinism by Herbert Spencer. Most evolutionist do not subscribe to the "red in tooth and claw" view that most people are indoctrinated into and instead view nature as a balancing act were life and death work in concert to maintain a sustainable ecosystem

2) Evolution is not directed. Another common misconception. Just because we have survived and are at the imaginary "top of the food chain" (literally we aren't even at the top of that) doesn't mean we are above other animals, have special rights, or are in anyway unique from all other life.

3) Of course almost any one would likely choose an individual they are close to over an animal, but they would also choose them over another individual they are not close to. Furthermore, even granting a inherent tendency to favor one's own species that doesn't make it right, only habit. Finally, this question/point is flawed specifically because people don't need to eat meat to live and, in the case of testing, we theoretically could test on humans. Without showing either why a human life is worth more you might as well not specify the types of animals at hand and let it stand that it is okay to sacrifice entity X to save entity Y and then draw from a hat 2 animals from all life on the planet.

4) Morality has to become involved. Logic without values is worthless. Example, look to attorneys. People professionally trained in logic and argumentation can make perfectly coherent cases for two opposing things. There has to be something to guide pure logic otherwise it is empty, aimless, and easily counter by an equally empty line of logic.

5) We can eat/test/abuse animals so it is right is not an excuse. The Al Queda obviously could ram a plane into the WTC, that didn't make it okay for them to do it.

Exactly - the opinion of the majority. Slavery was once moral, because it was something that the majority did and agreed with.

I am not arguing ethically about anything! That's the entire point - what I've been trying to say all along. You can't argue that what we do is right or wrong. You see to agree with me, so I don't understand why you're trying to refute my argument - which says exactly the same thing you are trying to.

My problem is with the people who walk around with their noses in the air, thinking that somehow we are morally 'entitled' to be superior. There's nothing moral about it. We control the planet, therefore we do what we want with it. We are not somehow entitled.

You'll notice I never tried to argue whether it was ethical or not. I argue that you can't determine whether it is ethical or not.

I need to go, but filtherton, stick around - I'm not done yet :P

Alright, now your turn.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that medical testing and deforestation, pollution, and animal harvesting are unrelated simply because their methods of execution are so varied. Animal testing is a symptom - of human attitude. The entire environmental problem is a result of attitude - until you can get the attitude to change, none of our reforms will do any good.

The current status quo is that the planet is here for our use. We are somehow superior to everyone and everything and therefore are entitled to use nature for our own purposes without heeding the consequences. Hunting is fun, so we hunt. We need roads, so we pave our way through wilderness wherever it is convenient for us. We need some way to deal with our waste, so we dump our sewage into the bays and oceans.

It is the attitude that, hey, we don't have to give a shit about our planet - we're here to have fun and fuck around for our 70 or 80 years and then we die. Who cares?

Medical testing is just one of the logical results of our attitude. Animals are a commodity. Might as well use them to their fullest potential.

Whether or not we owe them anything is beside the point - though I do believe we should be ashamed of the shape our planet is currently in. And the rest of your paragraph says exactly what I've been saying - you do realize that, don't you? We do it because we can - that's the way the world is. But don't try to tell yourself that it's somehow right.

If you're going to argue that, then slavery should still be in effect. Dictators would be heroes. Hitler didn't do anything wrong. Each of them could do it - so they did, and that's how the world works. Given a choice, Hitler would obviously prefer his Master Race to everyone else.

Actually, old people have nothing to offer from a biological standpoint - if you are going to argue that they are useful because they raise children then we should kill off all the old people who aren't. We should kill off everyone that doesn't contribute anything to society and the human race as a whole. The genetically inferior weaken the gene pool, so people with hereditary diseases should be removed. People with disabilities should be removed. And why waste time rehabilitating criminals? Just kill them and be done with it. Drag all the drug dealers and punk kids off the street, line them up against the wall and shoot them all.

All hail Hitler?

So tell me why it is that 'might makes right' isn't moral in society but is somehow moral when we apply it to nature. You are implicitly claiming that humans are somehow above or removed from nature - not subject to its laws or conditions.

If the status quo is correct, nothing would ever change - since we are automatically assuming that the current state of affairs is the correct one, changing anything would actually be wrong. So if a dictatorship is the status quo, it would be wrong to start a revolution, no matter how corrupt or tyrannical the dictator is.

I'm for medical testing. Cosmetic testing is pushing it. Animals cannot have the same rights we do. They cannot posess them. We can talk all day about why they should have rights. We can even give them all the rights in the world. That's not going to keep a lion from eating you in the jungle. Animals would kill you for the same reason. Survival. We test medecine on animals because it will increase our ability to survive. We eat animals to survive.

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."

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

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.