Might is right? maybe.

I just think human life is worth more than animal life, so if medical experiments on animals help us develope cures for human disease then that is something I can live with. And they do. There are countless drugs that were first tested on animals that have gone on to help millions of humans.

If someone currently experimenting on animals found a cure for the diseases that Baby Just Like Watching Big Lil or Steve S are suffering then I would rejoice. For me, such a discovery is worth at least a million billion guinea pigs.

I don't particularly find that uncomfortable to answer. Maybe that makes me morally bankrupt. I can live with that.

 

What about humans who live in South Elmsall you cheeky get?

 

There's always exceptions to the rule

 

And I can certainly live with that too. That makes two of us.

 

I should be quiet I know

as I'm a prefessional experimenter on humans.

The pros and cons of early stage drug /treatment developments are complex and even I don't understand them.

I know that if ever an anti vivisectionist or thier relatives requires curative or life prolonging cancer treatment they should look long and hard at their principles before the accept it.

There again that may be very difficult for them to turn down the opportunity of a treatment.

Merely an observation.

 

That's fine mate.

You know what's coming next though don't you?

Can we apply the ethos of might being right to some situations and not others?

Surely the basic philosophy can't be altered as it suits us. I'm looking for objective honesty. It either is or it isn't.

 

I don't go for that at all

Every issue should be looked at separately. I don't like the idea of animals suffering, but it is something I can live with if it can help to stop humans suffering. But I don't agree with animal experiments for cosmetics or washing powder or whatever. Because I'm human I can apply logic to each situation and make a decision upon what I believe is morally right. I do not have to stick by one rule and apply it to everything. I have been given the ability to weigh up the pros and cons and as such I will use that ability to help me decide what is right and wrong for a particular situation.

Let me put a question to you. Animal experiments have not only helped humans, they have helped animals. Thousands of drugs have been discovered that have helped prevent animals suffering. These discoveries have been made as a direct result of animal experimentation. Was it morally right of us to force suffering on the few to help the many? Think of the shots that our pets get. Animals that we love. Was it right that we experimented on dogs in the past to help the dogs we keep now?

 

RE: I don't go for that at all

No no no. You're clouding the issue mate. Again, I'm talking about a basic philosophical principle not whether we choose to apply it or not.

Regardless of the situation the principle remains the same.

Your question's a good one but it's not an inter-species/inter-race etc dilema. It's about individuals benefiting their own kind. You'd have to ask is it right for us to force individuals to do that? A different dilema I believe.

 

I don't nor have I ever felt governed by basic philosophical principle

That is not how I live my life. I adapt to situations making use of all the knowledge I have to hand and making decisions upon that. Even the most basic philosophical principle I believe is adaptable. Thou shalt not kill. Well, yes, I totally agree. But if someone was attempting to murder my girfriend then I'd kill them first to stop them.