The Use of Animal in Research

[therealgavmac]

I have read with interest some of the posts on here, Moral High Ground, Racism etc etc and it is fantastic to see - in the most part - healthy debate and views. Before I make any comment, I am interested to see/hear the views of my fellow Hibees on the use of animals in research.

Let's clear one thing up though before we start - the days of rabbits wearing lipstick and dogs on the corner asking fo a light are long gone. Cosmetic research has been disallowed for over 20 years and smoking even longer than that.

[Woody1985]

Personally, I think that testing on animals is required.

Anything that is going to be given to humans must be tested on a living being. I understand there are most likely terrible things (that I probably don't even want to know about) that happen during testing.

I suspect it is essential to the future development of cures and prevention of disease.

I don't have any real insight into stats i.e. how many lab rats it took to help develop Benylin cold and flu for example and is the end result worth it.

My whole opinion is based on the fact that I think drugs need to be tested on a living being before being trialled on humans. It may not be an accurate opinion of the realities of testing but it is only that, an opinion.

No doubt there will be posts on here that may change my views.

[lapsedhibee]

Anything that is going to be given to humans must be tested on a living being.

Not a member of the animal correctness brigade by any means, but would prefer that huns were used for this purpose.

[Woody1985]

Not a member of the animal correctness brigade by any means, but would prefer that huns were used for this purpose.

:tee hee: Surely they're more like zombies. Would that make them eligable for living being?

[Tinyclothes]

I'm dead against it. I don't think that we're any more deserving of a place on this planet than other living things, including plants and trees.

[lapsedhibee]

I'm dead against it. I don't think that we're any more deserving of a place on this planet than other living things, including plants and trees.:agree: If you listen very carefully to a woodburning stove, there's a noise coming from inside it. That's the anguished cries of chopped wood.

[Tinyclothes]

:agree: If you listen very carefully to a woodburning stove, there's a noise coming from inside it. That's the anguished cries of chopped wood.

Nice work mate. My point with trees and the like is we shouldn't be destroying rain forests at the rate we're doing for human consumption. Nice way to get the debate rolling though. :rolleyes:

[RoslinInstHibby]

I reckon research should be tested out on death row prisoners, beasts etc.

[Twa Cairpets]

I reckon research should be tested out on death row prisoners, beasts etc.

Hello Dr Mengele.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm dead against it. I don't think that we're any more deserving of a place on this planet than other living things, including plants and trees.

Ever swatted a fly? Picked a flower?

[Ed De Gramo]

I reckon research should be tested out on death row prisoners, beasts etc.

:agree:

The **** of this world shoyuld be tested on...if it fails and kills them...ach well...however it mutates them into some Hulk like creature, we can just blame Government or Petrie :greengrin

[BravestHibs]

If I had a monkey I'd teach it to roll joints and smoke fags.

[Marabou Stork]

If testing a drug on an animal can save one life. It's worth it.

[gringojoe]

If I had a monkey I'd teach it to roll joints and smoke fags.

Not sure if it's safe to let a monkey have matches or a lighter best just let it have chewing tobacco or let it snort coke.

[BravestHibs]

Not sure if it's safe to let a monkey have matches or a lighter best just let it have chewing tobacco or let it snort coke.

Good point.

I wonder what I could make it do once it was addicted............

[MyJo]

If I had a monkey I'd teach it to roll joints and smoke fags.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLAj4sMhWzs :greengrin

[Speedy]

I'm ok with it. The only alternative in my opinion is to use (human) volunteers but this may lead to legal issues if anything went wrong.

[Beefster]

I'm dead against it. I don't think that we're any more deserving of a place on this planet than other living things, including plants and trees.

I assume you're a Vegan and won't wear leather?

I've no problems with animals being used for essential research or testing (i.e. not cosmetics). If killing 10,000 fluffy bunny rabbits helped develop a treatment which saved or protected one kid, it would be justified IMHO.

[IndieHibby]

If I had a monkey I'd teach it to roll joints and smoke fags.

qwality :faf:

---------- Post added at 03:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:07 PM ----------


Good point.

I wonder what I could make it do once it was addicted............

Might be easier to ask what it wouldn't do....

[Marabou Stork]

The other day I gave my pet rabbit a bath using Body Shop shampoo and I was horrified to see its eyes go red and swell like golf balls. If Body Shop had had the sense to test their products on laboratory animals like everyone else, my rabbit would have been saved a considerable amount of discomfort.

[RoslinInstHibby]

Hello Dr Mengele.


a bit harsh:confused: mengele worked on innocent people including women and children, hardly the same as saying test on death row inmates and kiddy fiddlers.....

[IndieHibby]

I'm dead against it. I don't think that we're any more deserving of a place on this planet than other living things, including plants and trees.

But 'deserving' has nothing to do with whether or not an organism exists. Organisms produce more offspring than the resources available to support them. 'Nature' takes care of those who are not the strongest, fittest or most fortunate. (Obvious regards to Darwin etc :wink:)

So if we have the ability to save a life or prevent suffering of humans, yet fail to do so out of some naive notion of equality, or fairness to other organisms who happen to be alive at the same time, then in my mind, we'd be as well to cause the suffering in the first place.

Here is the analogy I would like you to consider:

If I watch someone who has been injured, say, in a road accident, suffer and die, while I nurse an injured (insert fluffy cute helpless animal here) then I would be rightly prosecuted for this.

The judge and jury would consider me a considerable twat if, in my defence, I said "Well, the bunny/puppy/kitten was just as deserving of my help"?

Or am I just an insensitive carnivore?

[IndieHibby]

The other day I gave my pet rabbit a bath using Body Shop shampoo and I was horrified to see its eyes go red and swell like golf balls. If Body Shop had had the sense to test their products on laboratory animals like everyone else, my rabbit would have been saved a considerable amount of discomfort.

I'm hugely entertained by the notion that this may actually have happened (the apparent suffering of your pet aside). If it did, apologies - you are evidently a devoted carer of your pet.

Either way - it's a pretty good point. By not testing their products on animals they have caused suffering to animals -oh! the irony....

Send them a letter - upon reading it I imagine the torturous irony emerging in their brains may cause a stroke or something!

[Twa Cairpets]

a bit harsh:confused: mengele worked on innocent people including women and children, hardly the same as saying test on death row inmates and kiddy fiddlers.....

The point I was making was that the recipients of his "tests" were people that were regarded as "untermenschen" - i.e. society had viewed them to be less worthy of life than other people. This is the same judgement you are making. Its slightly off topic I know, but I find that your belief - if genuinely held - is pretty abhorent. Guildford 4? Birmingham 6? The arguments are pretty much exactly the same as those regarding the death penalty, except your view includes the possibility of horrendous medical suffering.

Animals, regardless of their fluffiness or cuteness are, in my opinion, destined to be the fall guys for some areas of human advance, and Im kinda ok with that.

[Hainan Hibs]

I'd do the testing on convicted murderers, rapists, paedo's. Doing the testing on Humans would give a more accurate result and animals have done nothing wrong.

[IndieHibby]

a bit harsh:confused: mengele worked on innocent people including women and children, hardly the same as saying test on death row inmates and kiddy fiddlers.....

Some opinions are less thought through than other opinions - agreed?

[IndieHibby]

I'd do the testing on convicted murderers, rapists, paedo's. Doing the testing on Humans would give a more accurate result and animals have done nothing wrong.

What if you had been falsely convicted of rape - then someone sends you off for indiscriminate and prolonged torture?

What if you survived and were subsequently released - would you spend your life in harmony, comforted by the knowledge that other actual criminals had suffered?

Somehow, I think not.

[RoslinInstHibby]

The point I was making was that the recipients of his "tests" were people that were regarded as "untermenschen" - i.e. society had viewed them to be less worthy of life than other people. This is the same judgement you are making. Its slightly off topic I know, but I find that your belief - if genuinely held - is pretty abhorent. Guildford 4? Birmingham 6? The arguments are pretty much exactly the same as those regarding the death penalty, except your view includes the possibility of horrendous medical suffering.

Animals, regardless of their fluffiness or cuteness are, in my opinion, destined to be the fall guys for some areas of human advance, and Im kinda ok with that.

Cool, i get your point :agree:

---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------


Some opinions are less thought through than other opinions - agreed?


i would agree to that.:agree:

[Marabou Stork]

I'm hugely entertained by the notion that this may actually have happened (the apparent suffering of your pet aside). If it did, apologies - you are evidently a devoted carer of your pet.

Either way - it's a pretty good point. By not testing their products on animals they have caused suffering to animals -oh! the irony....

Send them a letter - upon reading it I imagine the torturous irony emerging in their brains may cause a stroke or something!

:greengrin

It didn't really happen. It was a letter from the Viz from ages ago.

[(((Fergus)))]

The other day I gave my pet rabbit a bath using Body Shop shampoo and I was horrified to see its eyes go red and swell like golf balls. If Body Shop had had the sense to test their products on laboratory animals like everyone else, my rabbit would have been saved a considerable amount of discomfort.

As well as being very funny, that is a valid point. Different creatures react differently to different substances ("one animal's meat is another animal's poison"). If you are developing something for rabbits, test it on rabbits. If you are developing something for human consumption, test it on yourself - the quality control will be impeccable.

[Twa Cairpets]

As well as being very funny, that is a valid point. Different creatures react differently to different substances ("one animal's meat is another animal's poison"). If you are developing something for rabbits, test it on rabbits. If you are developing something for human consumption, test it on yourself - the quality control will be impeccable.

Its a valid point only insofar as it would be relatively pointless testing on entirely unrelated organisms. For example, it wouldnt be hugely beneficial testing dermatological medicine on, say, fish.

I think enough is probably understood on biological actions and reactions to justify a certain amount of testing under controlled conditions.

In other areas of research, such as genetics and evolutionary study, fruit flys are used (and by some standards fairly horribly abused) to see how organisms "evolve" and the effect of genes on large rapidly reproducing populations. i think this ok too.

[Tinyclothes]

I assume you're a Vegan and won't wear leather?

I've no problems with animals being used for essential research or testing (i.e. not cosmetics). If killing 10,000 fluffy bunny rabbits helped develop a treatment which saved or protected one kid, it would be justified IMHO.

Asking if I'm a vegan and wear leather is a totally different point. The topic is about testing on animals, which I disagree with. I'm not saying everyone should be a vegan at all. By your reasoning, if you eat meat you should automatically agree with testing on amimals and to take it to it's logical conclusion, if you eat meat then you should have no regard for animals and how they are treated so I might as well kick my neighbours cat to death.

[Twa Cairpets]

Asking if I'm a vegan and wear leather is a totally different point. The topic is about testing on animals, which I disagree with. I'm not saying everyone should be a vegan at all. By your reasoning, if you eat meat you should automatically agree with testing on amimals and to take it to it's logical conclusion, if you eat meat then you should have no regard for animals and how they are treated so I might as well kick my neighbours cat to death.

I think the point was that your initial statement regarding the equal "right to life" of all living things is potentially exposed as a double standard if you can happily eat a chicken.

Its a different point to your "if you eat meat then you should have no regard for animals". I take what I believe to be a pragmatic view. Animals should be treated in a humane fashion and dealt with fairly, but ultimately if the human race decides to kill them for food or kill them for valid research - both activities give direct benefit to people - then thats surely ok. If you truly believe in the equality of life, then rearing for food isnt justifiable.

[Tinyclothes]

I think the point was that your initial statement regarding the equal "right to life" of all living things is potentially exposed as a double standard if you can happily eat a chicken.

Its a different point to your "if you eat meat then you should have no regard for animals". I take what I believe to be a pragmatic view. Animals should be treated in a humane fashion and dealt with fairly, but ultimately if the human race decides to kill them for food or kill them for valid research - both activities give direct benefit to people - then thats surely ok. If you truly believe in the equality of life, then rearing for food isnt justifiable.

If it was acceptable to still hunt for your own food then I'd be all up for that. Don't really have many options living in London to go and shoot some farmers cow and bring it home for me to eat.

[Twa Cairpets]

If it was acceptable to still hunt for your own food then I'd be all up for that. Don't really have many options living in London to go and shoot some farmers cow and bring it home for me to eat.

Absolutely, but is it not even therefore more of a double standard to happily to eat meat if its someone else doing the killing for you out of sight?

Its a picky point Im making possibly, and if you dont believe in animal testing that is a fair viewpoint, but I dont think you can take that stand on the basis of a belief in the equality and sanctity of all living things and happily eat them at the same time.

[Andy74]

If it was acceptable to still hunt for your own food then I'd be all up for that. Don't really have many options living in London to go and shoot some farmers cow and bring it home for me to eat.

Tiny, have you ever had the need to take medication? Were you happy that it was there? Ever had a loved one who needed treatment? Have any loved ones at all? Very possible they will be taken from you or would have been sooner had it not been for preventative measures.

[Tinyclothes]

Absolutely, but is it not even therefore more of a double standard to happily to eat meat if its someone else doing the killing for you out of sight?

Its a picky point Im making possibly, and if you dont believe in animal testing that is a fair viewpoint, but I dont think you can take that stand on the basis of a belief in the equality and sanctity of all living things and happily eat them at the same time.

I understand your point and maybe I am contradicting myself. It would be a strange sight seeing me in my leather pants, shouting at the TV when a programme on animal testing comes on as bits of steak fly out of my mouth and land on my tiger skin rug.

I still don't agree with it though.

[Calvin]

I'm happy for testing to occur on animals. Rats, for example, are lesser beings than Humans - I'd prefer a rat was killed due to dodgy drugs than a Human.

[Tinyclothes]

I'm happy for testing to occur on animals. Rats, for example, are lesser beings than Humans - I'd prefer a rat was killed due to dodgy drugs than a Human.

It's not as simple as that though. Give a rat a drug and if it's fine then lets rock. It happens on such a huge scale with monkeys, dolphins, rats, beagles, etc and for all kinds of different things, some that aren't going to help find a cure for cancer or be that important in human development.

[Tinyclothes]

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/animal-welfare/adi-shocking-tests-exposed-inside-huntingdon-life-sciences-uk-lab-as-eu-considers-ending-primate-experiments-$1266274$464772.htm

[Twa Cairpets]

It's not as simple as that though. Give a rat a drug and if it's fine then lets rock. It happens on such a huge scale with monkeys, dolphins, rats, beagles, etc and for all kinds of different things, some that aren't going to help find a cure for cancer or be that important in human development.

Tinyclothes, I'm going to pick up on this, because you are making statements that may, for all I know, be true, but are very possibly not.

"Huge scale" - what constitutes "huge". Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Is there and acceptable scale at which animals can be used in experimentation, and if so, what is ok for them to be tested with? Cancer treatments? vaccinations? the common cold?

"monkeys, dolphins, rats, beagles". I dont know of any independent studies showing numbers of these species, but you suggest that its more acceptable for rats than the others? Are you ok with this? BTW Im not being provocative here - its not an area I have looked at in any great depth, but just feel that where there is no viable alternative, its the right thing to do.

I think I remember seeing or reading somewhere that computer modelling was having a marked effect on the amoun tof testing being undertaken, which is a good thing. Im not in favour of testing for testing sake, but also dont believe that this happens to a great extent. People who fund labs i would imagine do it on a commercial basis, and therefore would look for a commercial return based, one would imagine, on the provision of, for example, drugs that provide a clinically measurable positive difference to an illness.

[Twa Cairpets]

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/animal-welfare/adi-shocking-tests-exposed-inside-huntingdon-life-sciences-uk-lab-as-eu-considers-ending-primate-experiments-$1266274$464772.htm

The link is to a press release from "Animal Defenders International", which in fairness is hardly a disinterested opinion. I instinctively distrust such articles that make as their primary point an appeal to emotion. "monkeys on rusting, collapsing cages desparately shake their tiny prisons", "tubes are forced down their throats" etc etc. I know these things are bad, and that they probably do happen. I'd like to see the effort directed at improving these conditions rather than seeking to end the practice of animal testing completely.

[ancienthibby]

I am not here to hijack this thread, but I find it very sad to read through this particular subject at a particular time when we are all faced with yesterday's news of the horrendous treatment levied to some of our most vulnerable people in society.

I am referring to the 'paedo' trial judgement yesterday which revealed some quite breathtaking abuses of children as young as just a few weeks.

I take the view that, as a society, we should be measured by how we treat the old and the young, the disabled and the most vulnerable. In the case of the young weans involved here, we have totally failed (and the same applies to a similar case in Plymouth?).

I have been a pet owner most of my life and still am. I would wish no harm on any of these pets anywhere, anytime, but there is something far wrong with our priorities when we can afford to be silent when children are being subject to the most horrific abuse.

[Tinyclothes]

Tinyclothes, I'm going to pick up on this, because you are making statements that may, for all I know, be true, but are very possibly not.

"Huge scale" - what constitutes "huge". Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Is there and acceptable scale at which animals can be used in experimentation, and if so, what is ok for them to be tested with? Cancer treatments? vaccinations? the common cold?

"monkeys, dolphins, rats, beagles". I dont know of any independent studies showing numbers of these species, but you suggest that its more acceptable for rats than the others? Are you ok with this? BTW Im not being provocative here - its not an area I have looked at in any great depth, but just feel that where there is no viable alternative, its the right thing to do.

I think I remember seeing or reading somewhere that computer modelling was having a marked effect on the amoun tof testing being undertaken, which is a good thing. Im not in favour of testing for testing sake, but also dont believe that this happens to a great extent. People who fund labs i would imagine do it on a commercial basis, and therefore would look for a commercial return based, one would imagine, on the provision of, for example, drugs that provide a clinically measurable positive difference to an illness.

I'll get back to you on the other points with proper facts that I have somewhere on my PC at home. The highlighted point doesn;t make sense as I have included rats in with the other animals so not sure how I'd be suggesting that it's ok for rats but not other species.

---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------


I am not here to hijack this thread, but I find it very sad to read through this particular subject at a particular time when we are all faced with yesterday's news of the horrendous treatment levied to some of our most vulnerable people in society.

I am referring to the 'paedo' trial judgement yesterday which revealed some quite breathtaking abuses of children as young as just a few weeks.

I take the view that, as a society, we should be measured by how we treat the old and the young, the disabled and the most vulnerable. In the case of the young weans involved here, we have totally failed (and the same applies to a similar case in Plymouth?).

I have been a pet owner most of my life and still am. I would wish no harm on any of these pets anywhere, anytime, but there is something far wrong with our priorities when we can afford to be silent when children are being subject to the most horrific abuse.

Start a thread up about it then and leave this thread for it's original purpose.

[LiverpoolHibs]

As much as I fundamentally disagree with him, I'm tempted to introduce some of Peter Singer's arguments on the subject (purely in a devil's advocate manner) just to get things going a bit. :wink:

Nowt like a bit of applied ethics...

"An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable."

Discuss.

[Tinyclothes]

As much as I fundamentally disagree with him, I'm tempted to introduce some of Peter Singer's arguments on the subject (purely in a devil's advocate manner) just to get things going a bit. :wink:

Nowt like a bit of applied ethics...

"An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable."

Discuss.

Wow, that's some sentence. I agree entirely with it,

[ancienthibby]

As much as I fundamentally disagree with him, I'm tempted to introduce some of Peter Singer's arguments on the subject (purely in a devil's advocate manner) just to get things going a bit. :wink:

Nowt like a bit of applied ethics...

"An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable."

Discuss.

Experiments on non-brain-damaged human beings are carried out every day, though 96% of all chemotherapy fails!!

[Tinyclothes]

Experiments on non-brain-damaged human beings are carried out every day, though 96% of all chemotherapy fails!!

I wouldn't call chemo an experiment, the therapy part of would suggest it's more a therapy or treatment for a disease.

Experiment - a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle

[ancienthibby]

I wouldn't call chemo an experiment, the therapy part of would suggest it's more a therapy or treatment for a disease.

Experiment - a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle

When a doctor tells you that this treatment may work or not on you, I'd call that testing!

[Tinyclothes]

"Huge scale" - what constitutes "huge". Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Is there and acceptable scale at which animals can be used in experimentation, and if so, what is ok for them to be tested with? Cancer treatments? vaccinations? the common cold?


100 million tests a year carried out worldwide. This doesn't include those animals bred for testing and then destroyed as 'surplus' to requirements.

ALL drugs licensed in Britain have been tested on animals.

These are just two stats of many, does this class as huge?

[Twa Cairpets]

When a doctor tells you that this treatment may work or not on you, I'd call that testing!

I'd call it medicine

[BravestHibs]

When a doctor tells you that this treatment may work or not on you, I'd call that testing!

Is there any medecine that works 100% of the time?

[Twa Cairpets]

100 million tests a year carried out worldwide. This doesn't include those animals bred for testing and then destroyed as 'surplus' to requirements.

ALL drugs licensed in Britain have been tested on animals.

These are just two stats of many, does this class as huge?

I'd say that 100million tests is huge, yes. Any source for this figure?

However, if it is accurate, you would have to measure that figure against lives saved/prolonged/made more comfortable from anyone taking any of the medicines licensed in the UK as a result of animal testing.

Ultimately its a moral judgement call, I suppose. I come down on the point of humans are worth more, generally speaking than animals. I dont want animals to suffer unecessarily, and I think lab animals should have as good conditions as any, but if people have better lives as a result of their "sacrifice", then that is, on balance, a good thing. I think.

[Tinyclothes]

I'd say that 100million tests is huge, yes. Any source for this figure?

However, if it is accurate, you would have to measure that figure against lives saved/prolonged/made more comfortable from anyone taking any of the medicines licensed in the UK as a result of animal testing.

Ultimately its a moral judgement call, I suppose. I come down on the point of humans are worth more, generally speaking than animals. I dont want animals to suffer unecessarily, and I think lab animals should have as good conditions as any, but if people have better lives as a result of their "sacrifice", then that is, on balance, a good thing. I think.

I got the figure from a report that was published in the independant. The other figures I have 2.7m tests in Britain and 11m in euro union were from 2002 so didn't bother adding them in as it will be different now.

It is totally a moral judgment and I totally understand the viewpoint that humans are worth more than animals and their suffering is well worth a humans life. I don't though and I'd like to find out how many life-saving drugs have been developed through animal testing (might be loads, might be few). The sad truth is most of the testing is for things that won;t save a life though, just make it slightly more comfortable.

---------- Post added at 06:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 PM ----------


When a doctor tells you that this treatment may work or not on you, I'd call that testing!

Testing on a personal and psychological level but, again you are going away from the topic of this thread. Just start up a new thread mate and get involved.

[Dashing Bob S]

With the exception of Jambos, i'd be against this.

[Beefster]

Asking if I'm a vegan and wear leather is a totally different point. The topic is about testing on animals, which I disagree with. I'm not saying everyone should be a vegan at all. By your reasoning, if you eat meat you should automatically agree with testing on amimals and to take it to it's logical conclusion, if you eat meat then you should have no regard for animals and how they are treated so I might as well kick my neighbours cat to death.

My point was, as TwoCarpets alluded to, that testing on animals is absolutely essential in allowing humans to live, get better and have a better quality of life. Arguably, eating meat or wearing leather is a far more trivial reason to kill animals.

[IndieHibby]

As much as I fundamentally disagree with him, I'm tempted to introduce some of Peter Singer's arguments on the subject (purely in a devil's advocate manner) just to get things going a bit. :wink:

Nowt like a bit of applied ethics...

"An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable."

Discuss.

Mmmm... interesting. After some deliberation, I thought this one would vex me. Then I realised that the crux of this is there is a clear attempt to draw equivalence between humans and animals. But, imo, this is not a fair comparision.

We eat meat, we don't eat humans. We don't and shouldn't draw equivalence between humans and animals in these contexts. We are not equivalent to animals.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Mmmm... interesting. After some deliberation, I thought this one would vex me. Then I realised that the crux of this is there is a clear attempt to draw equivalence between humans and animals. But, imo, this is not a fair comparision.

We eat meat, we don't eat humans. We don't and shouldn't draw equivalence between humans and animals in these contexts. We are not equivalent to animals.

Again, this is all going to be devil's advocate, but...

What distinction are you drawing between the two 'groups' and on what grounds?

It's fairly undeniable that animals are both conscious creatures and are capable of feeling pain and suffering.

Singer argues that in ethical decisions it is the subject's exhibition of interests and preferences that is paramount in deciding how we should act towards them. On a utilitarian basis, if beings (human or non-human) exhibit interests and preferences then it is ethically correct that these should be satisfied rather than denied. He says, and he probably has a point, that non-human animals self-evidently display their interests and preferences, it's just that they differ to humans'. Species, therefore, becomes irrelevant, and suffering is 'democratised' across species boundaries - if it's wrong to punch a child it's wrong to punch a cow, since the sensation they get is exactly (or largely) the same. Just because we assume superiority this doesn't have any implication for the actual level of pain experienced.

He'd say the assumption is based in 'speciesism' and is analogous to racism (a white person assuming that his own race feel pain more than black people) and sexism (a man assuming women feel less pain than his own sex). I wonder how Singer would go down on here! :wink:

His conclusion is that the human interest in eating meat, wearing leather or developing drugs to prolong and improve the quality of their life is in every case outweighed by the non-human interest in not being killed for their meat, not being killed for their skin and not being experimented upon; unless the pleasure or improvement we get outweighs the pain and the loss of pleasure in the animal. So vivesection only becomes acceptable if the strides forward outweigh the suffering of the animal - which is always unlikely within the paradigm he creates.

[Twa Cairpets]

Again, this is all going to be devil's advocate, but...

What distinction are you drawing between the two 'groups' and on what grounds?

It's fairly undeniable that animals are both conscious creatures and are capable of feeling pain and suffering.

Singer argues that in ethical decisions it is the subject's exhibition of interests and preferences that is paramount in deciding how we should act towards them. On a utilitarian basis, if beings (human or non-human) exhibit interests and preferences then it is ethically correct that these should be satisfied rather than denied. He says, and he probably has a point, that non-human animals self-evidently display their interests and preferences, it's just that they differ to humans'. Species, therefore, becomes irrelevant, and suffering is 'democratised' across species boundaries - if it's wrong to punch a child it's wrong to punch a cow, since the sensation they get is exactly (or largely) the same. Just because we assume superiority this doesn't have any implication for the actual level of pain experienced.

He'd say the assumption is based in 'speciesism' and is analogous to racism (a white person assuming that his own race feel pain more than black people) and sexism (a man assuming women feel less pain than his own sex). I wonder how Singer would go down on here! :wink:

His conclusion is that the human interest in eating meat, wearing leather or developing drugs to prolong and improve the quality of their life is in every case outweighed by the non-human interest in not being killed for their meat, not being killed for their skin and not being experimented upon; unless the pleasure or improvement we get outweighs the pain and the loss of pleasure in the animal. So vivesection only becomes acceptable if the strides forward outweigh the suffering of the animal - which is always unlikely within the paradigm he creates.

It would always be (on an individual animal basis anyway) a paradigm within which the need of the animal would be greater.

I dont know Singer, but on the basis of what you have desctibed, I would reject as fundamentlly flawed his premise. Does he give flys the same importance as cows?

[LiverpoolHibs]

It would always be (on an individual animal basis anyway) a paradigm within which the need of the animal would be greater.

I dont know Singer, but on the basis of what you have desctibed, I would reject as fundamentlly flawed his premise.

Yeah, as would I.


Does he give flys the same importance as cows?

Hmmm, I'm not sure - he's probably open to accusations of a form of infinite regression, if you include insects would you include insects would you include larvae, if you include larvae would you include micro-organisms etc., etc...

I think he'd probably say that in mammals/birds/etc., as in humans, it's fairly easy for humans to witness suffering when they are caused pain; as it's more difficult to observe in 'lesser' creatures you'd be better to err on the side of caution and assume that they can rather than assume that you can't. But that you'd draw the line where it became obvious that the life-form no longer exhibited 'interests and preferences' - in having pleasure maximised and suffering minimised. So you'd probably rule out plants, micro-organisms and the very lowest animals.

This (http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm) is his most famous piece on the issue, if you're interested, 'All Animals Are Equal'. It's pretty fascinating, if only as a philosophical exercise.

[IndieHibby]

Yeah, as would I.



Hmmm, I'm not sure - he's probably open to accusations of a form of infinite regression, if you include insects would you include insects would you include larvae, if you include larvae would you include micro-organisms etc., etc...

I think he'd probably say that in mammals/birds/etc., as in humans, it's fairly easy for humans to witness suffering when they are caused pain; as it's more difficult to observe in 'lesser' creatures you'd be better to err on the side of caution and assume that they can rather than assume that you can't. But that you'd draw the line where it became obvious that the life-form no longer exhibited 'interests and preferences' - in having pleasure maximised and suffering minimised. So you'd probably rule out plants, micro-organisms and the very lowest animals.

This (http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm) is his most famous piece on the issue, if you're interested, 'All Animals Are Equal'. It's pretty fascinating, if only as a philosophical exercise.

It's seems his argument comes down to the morality of causing suffering and the justifications that preclude it.

For a start I would contend that pain and suffering should be regarded as separate. I would argue that suffering necessitates a concept of self in order to reflect on your pain. Pain merely requires a nerous system capable of dealing with it. Ergo, humans suffer from their pain, animals do not (as they have no *developed* concept of self).

Given that when we eat meat, the animals are humanley executed - hence no pain or suffering. (Living conditions, unless they cause pain, cannot be called suffering. If there is permanent pain caused by this, then this is cruel and neglectful)
I would also argue that many farmed animals live, overall, a better life that their wild cousins. 'Nature' can be extremely cruel. But no-one tries to equivocate the pain we cause with the 'oppotunity-pain' missing in 'Nature's' involvement in rearing these animals.
As for experiments; clearly there is an issue over prolonged pain and discomfort, especially with primates. This is where the argument comes down to a split between those who are prepard to accept that this is a necessary cost in the gain of better medicine, and those who feel that we need to protect the rights of all non-human organisms against the rights of humans.

In my mind the latter position is somewhat.... :confused:

[IndieHibby]

Yeah, as would I.

This (http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm) is his most famous piece on the issue, if you're interested, 'All Animals Are Equal'. It's pretty fascinating, if only as a philosophical exercise.

"In other words, I am urging that we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species" TOM REGAN & PETER SINGER (eds.), Animal Rights and Human Obligations, New Jersey, 1989, pp. 148-162

Started to read it (it's amazing what procrastinaton over work will lead you to do!) and got to the above quote.

If this is the crux of his point, which it seems to be, then I agree with you, I think, in stating that his assumption of equality extending to all organisms is false (imo).

Heck, even extending it to all humans, while morally sound, is, in practice, very hard (see gender-pay gaps, influenced by gaps in what the genders are prepared to sacrifiice for their careers)

[IndieHibby]

Which is basically the problem with the entire notion of equality.

Many, many people, but first and foremost, the members of the minority seeking to raise their 'status' by demanding 'equality', fail to make the disctinction between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity.