Hypothesis re. animal testing etc.

RE: Cats pretty much worked out the same thing

Dog owners are loyal and courageous.

Cat owners are sneaky and smelly.

 

Ah.

So might is right then?

 

Of course it depends on the individual's take on it. That's what I'm asking for. But your morality, if looked at truthfully, shouldn't depend on where you are in the equation. We can't say it's ok for us to nick the bloke next door's telly but not for him to nick ours. Nicking tellies is either right or wrong. Viewed totally objectively the morality SHOULD be set in stone in the opinion of each individual not depend on whether the act in question benefits or harms him.

No need to go declaring that the question is stupid because you can't answer it comfortably.

You believe it can be morally right for one species to inflict suffering upon another for it's own benefit. That's your perogative. My next point is how do we now apply that moral judgement to other questions? Were the europeans morally right to slaughter the Australian aborigines or are we going to try to say that the philosophy that "Might is right" should only apply to cross-species medical matters?




.

 

You've opened up a right can of worms there. I'll give it 5 minutes before someone mentions US foriegn policy.

 

I was rather hoping they would.

 

I answered perfectly comfortably, no need get shirty because someone has a different viewpoint to your own.

Of course I believe that 'it can be morally right for one species to inflict suffering upon another for it's own benefit', I am an omnivore, I eat other animals, it is for my benefit that I do so. I do not see the benefit in eating aborigines, however.

As for 'are we going to try to say that the philosophy that "Might is right" should only apply to cross-species medical matters? ' - I see no benefit to human kind in killing humans, I'd rather that animals were killed. I'd much rather nothing was killed, but if it must be something then, yes I'm for animal testing. Except on dogs, a lifeform on a higher plane than humanity.

 

You just did!

 

Reight.

I didn't get shirty and, as I said, you're obviously entitled to your own viewpoint. Your claim that the question is "stupid" was, I believe, frustratedly born out of the discomfort of the realisation that you're morally imperfect. But we all are and it's ok to admit it isn't it? Even plants strive to kill each other for their own benefit. Maybe we can't handle the realisation that we're not god-like in our morality and are actually the same as all the other animals we reluctantly share this planet with. The benefit wasn't to human kind, it was to the europeans. That's the point.

Re. the aborigines. I used that example to take the question to the next level and apply the same moral judgement to an inter-race situation rather than an inter-species one. Regardless of the circumstances the question is philosophically unaltered. Obviously it doesn't matter why it benefited us to remove the aborigines. It did so we did.

I'm not judging anyone mate. I'm just saying that, in justifying animal testing this way, we're saying might is right but we can't just pick and choose the circumstances to which we're comfortable applying that ethos.






.

 

Im safe in replying on this subject because Windy apparently doesn't read my threads...

He says below that he hopes someone mentions US foreign policy, well guess what? Now I might be wrong but he probably believes US foreign policy as 'good'. Now the simple unescapable truth is that whether you see it as 'good' or 'bad' it has killed and has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, many of them guilty of nothing but being born in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Of course he might argue, and its a perfectly good point, that some will justify animal testing on the basis that it is 'good' in that it leads to cures for human diseases. But, as in the above example the simple fact is that animal testing kills tens of thousands of animals each year. (maybe more, maybe less I dont know the numbers).

It comes down to values you place on life and whether you believe animals are our equals or whether as the more advanced species we have the right to use them as we see fit - and at the same time form some sort of justification for it.

Am I personally being hypocritical in not condemning testing on animals? To a large degree yes.

 

RE: Reight.

"in justifying animal testing this way, we're saying might is right but we can't just pick and choose the circumstances to which we're comfortable applying that ethos."

Surely we can pick and choose otherwise we'd be experimenting on humans. I agree with using animals for medical research but not for testing of new cosmetics or washing powders etc, therefore I am picking and choosing how that ethos is applied.
I agree with stem cell research and yet some would argue that is akin to using a new-born baby for research.
I agree with breeding and killing animals for food, but I don't agree with chasing an animal for miles before killing it.
Surely in all manner of circumstances we do pick and choose what is morally correct.

 

RE: Reight.

"I'm not judging anyone mate. I'm just saying that, in justifying animal testing this way, we're saying might is right but we can't just pick and choose the circumstances to which we're comfortable applying that ethos."

So, what you are saying is that, once we have created a rule, we must apply it to all circumstances, no arguments. So, that makes slavery okay then, as long as they are kept as pets.

Shouldn't we judge each question seperately?

 

RE: Reight.

So you're happy with the idea of switching a basic principle on and off to suit your personal criteria?

 

RE: Reight.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

I'm talking about a basic principle that can exist regardless of the situation to which it's applied. The kind of pure, basic philosophy that our value systems are supposed to be built on.

We can't alter a principle but we can choose to ignore it when it suits us.

 

RE: Reight.

Yes, because that is using judgement on each circumstance.

Nobody could do otherwise.

I could ask you if killing another human was wrong and, almost certainly, you would say yes, that does not then mean you must apply that in every circumstance because you would then disagree, for instance, with Britain going to war with Germany in 1939.

Stealing is wrong - but if your family was starving and you saw a loaf of bread would you leave it and prefer your family to starve or would you steal the loaf of bread?

And I thought Acky was bad for wanting everything in black and white with no grey inbetween!

 

RE: Reight.

But you're not switching the principle on and off, you can't do that. You're choosing when to adhere to it and when not to.

 

RE: Reight.

You can't switch the principle on and off because it's not a physical entity - but in effect choosing when to apply and when not to apply is the same thing.

 

Well this is a long, drawn out, poorly designed pile of ****.

 

It's all just hot air though

The fact that more cars don't get stolen is due to the fact that the police exist and in areas where they are less effective more cars get stolen. Take away the police and you get chaos as people start to show their lack of morals and the fear of punishment errodes.

The hypothesis that we wouldn't feel it was moral if the boot was on the other foot is correct but so what. If there is nobody around to enforce our moral outrage and the perpitrators can justify it to themselves, our moral outrage has no inpact on the situation.

In the same way, if nobody can stop the war in Iraq what is to be gained by Windy being morally outraged. He can be as upset has he wants by it, but it doesn't make the slightest difference - even in a democracy.

It might make for an interesting theoretical discussion, but at the end of the day a hypothesis is of little real use.

It's reality that counts.

 

Thanks for not name-dropping.

But I do appreciate your 'superior creature' reference.

I nearly got a birdie, me.

 

Agreed

The effect is the same.

My contention is that the principle remains unalterable whether we choose to adhere to it or not.

We should admit to the hypocricy.