No. As an advanced species I'd imagine that the "aliens" would have realised that harming other life forms is not the way forward. One day I hope we will evolve a similar state of awareness.
Morals are only relevant if they can be enforced so it's a pointless question. If we can't stop them experimenting on us, who cares if we have a moral objection to it. It's down to the beings doing the experimentation to use their own moral code to make decisions. If they see a significant benefit to themselves from their actions then they will be able to square the morals of the situation and carry on regardless. Is the war in Iraq morally wrong? Irrelevant question. Nobody can stop the Americans and British doing what they are doing, so the morality of it is ivory tower hypothetical mumbo-jumbo
Been out, come back............. .....and Hartog's still the only one who's understood it and not dodged it.
If its morally wrong to take an animal out of its natural habitat,breed it and use it for experimentation it must be morally wrong to keep a pet of any kind.Testing for medical purposes isnt that much different from keeping an animal as an emotional crutch for the socially inadequate
OK then Bearing in mind that the hypothesis is flawed as there is no chance of Aliens ever visiting (but thats another thread - so for the sake of our argument I'll Assume that Aliens do exist, and that they dont have the silly Star Trek idea of non interference with developing lifeforms. Lets call them Vogons for the sake of argument.) If you are a Vogon which has developed interstellar travel and you find an insignificant planet with lots of primitive beings on it most of which dont even comprehend the existance of a wider universe- of course your morals will allow you to conduct "research". or even demolish the whole planet if its in the way - just as we would remove the a set of rabbit burrows to put in a new road
Just come across this Morally wrong - yes, but survival of the fittest takes over. And wouldn't part of their testing help us as well, just as experimenting on animals has helped in the treatment of animals? It's morally wrong that 2 people live in a 4 bedroomed house whilst a family of 4 live in a 2 bedroom house. It's morally wrong that people earn a vast fortune because they happen to be good at football whilst nurses get paid a pittance. But we allow it to happen.
RE: Morals are only relevant if they can be enforced That depends on what you mean by 'enforced'. I dont go stealing cars because I might get caught (although I might) I dont do it because I know its wrong. But no one actually makes me not steal cars! I believe inside everyone to a certain degree is a general instinctive belief as to what is right and wrong. This is 'enforced' by a society laying down a moral code as to what is and isn't acceptable. In some cases this doesn't happen (for various reasons) and you end up with a breakdown of those morals. When morals cross over cultures then you have a problem as you either decide to allow each others cultures to live their life their own way or you try to impose (either forcibly or through dialogue) your own beliefs on them. Animal experimentation and your example of invading Iraq do have one thing in common and arent just a question of morals and 'benefit' though. They involve the use of POWER and the consequences that power has on the subjects exposed to it. Its a shame Windy cant apply the same logic he uses with his treatment of animals to human beings. I might take his hypocritical, hypothetical questions more seriously if he did. -------- "If you cant be your brother's keeper, least not be his executioner"
I got as far as............... "Bearing in mind that the hypothesis is flawed as there is no chance of Aliens ever visiting" If you don't understand the word HYPOTHESIS then don't enter into a debate based on one. Jesus Christ.
You're asking the wrong people If an alien species came to Earth and started doing the things to us that you have suggested then they must hold the power, for we would not simply let them do such things as they sound inconvenient at best and painful/deadly at worst. As a species we tend not to like being inconvenienced and hurt, so the invaders must be exerting their power upon us. If another species held the power then our morals are of no consequence. We are subject to the morality of the superior species. We may find such actions abhorrent, but our moral take on events would count for nothing. When we conduct experiments on animals it is not the animals' morality that is in question, it is ours. Similarly, it would be the aliens' morality that would be in question in this case. To get an answer to your question you better ask the invading species. Should man ever invade an alien world and encounter an alien species over which we dominate then such questions about our morality could be asked.
Apologies Windy You had me going there for a while - it was a good wind up ....or do you really not understand the definition?!!
Jesus Christ It's nothing to do with what I think but it's completely answerable without all the smoke. The philosophy involved is completely independent of the details of the hypothesis. The problem most people have is that, whichever way you go, it's an uncomfortable question to answer. If you answer yes then what humans are doing is morally wrong. The truest answer to suit the majority would be that it's morally wrong but we want to keep doing it anyway. To answer no is to declare that might is right, a statement that opens up a whole can of worms.