Animal Tests

[Sarah22]

Although the anatomy of animals are close to that of a human, we cannot be sure that the reactions to products will be the same. Plus many of the tests are very painful and cruel.
But, if the product was made after tested on animals, I'll still buy it.

[Epistemologist]

I'm okay with animal testing as long as it has some good purpose for us humans. Of course, if it was unnecessarily cruel and was used for just some futile commercial purpose, then I'd probably think it's wrong. But if it's something we can use to jump over any true obstacle, then I say better them than us.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Micro dosing, culture testing, and computer modeling are also part of the testing process. You have faith that they will be sufficient, I do not.

Common sense tells me that testing on people, even if it is against their will, would produce better and quicker results -- however, the end does not justify the means.

The fact that dangerous drugs make it to market just means that drug companies are not doing enough testing before they get approval.

And drug compannies could never test their drugs on every kind of mammal in the world. And that is the slippery slope your defense gets to. You are still left with supporting a doctor`s or researcher`s apology to patients and their loved ones: "Sorry, our drug has deformed you and or killed your child, but rest assured, your injuries have helped others. Thanks for the input with your biology. You fall on the wrong side of the legder and more benefit from the few."

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Common sense tells me that testing on people, even if it is against their will, would produce better and quicker results -- however, the end does not justify the means. And drug compannies could never test their drugs on every kind of mammal in the world. And that is the slippery slope your defense gets to. You are still left with supporting a doctor`s or researcher`s apology to patients and their loved ones: "Sorry, our drug has deformed you and or killed your child, but rest assured, your injuries have helped others. Thanks for the input with your biology. You fall on the wrong side of the legder and more benefit from the few."

I remain unconvinced of your opinion. It still seems like it depends upon placing equal value upon animals. I don't.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Pooeypants It'll be interesting what alternative methods ppl can offer to animal testing. How about testing them on convicts? Especially those on life sentences (I mean like life life not the British one which lasts barely 10 years...), they're just a drain on the system. At least then they've contributed to society etc.

I don't know that kind of falls within cruel and unusally punishment. I amn for it. Offer a convict a reduced term, more privileges if the agree to testing. Most have been parasites on society and have never given back. This could be a way to give back.

Test results on humans would produce more accurate results and you could get verbal feedback.

However, testing on people just sounds wrong.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I remain unconvinced of your opinion. It still seems like it depends upon placing equal value upon animals. I don't.

It is not about equal values. Do retarded kids have an inherent equal value to as say the top scientists of the world?

It is about not causing suffering and equal consideration of interests.

I have to muse, too, what is the price being paid to the genetic health of our species by perverting mortality when we strive to prevent all diseases from affecting us? What will be the social and ecological costs and can the world ecology and social order support such a state? Does disease, and weak genetics of some porton of a species that don`t allow one to fight successfully against sickness add to the long term health of a species by acting on it in an evolutionary way?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Do retarded kids have an inherent equal value to as say the top scientists of the world?

What is your opinion on this?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos What is your opinion on this?

I asked you first. Well, do you?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I asked you first. Well, do you?

I do not understand the concept of inherent value. That is a subjective thing.

If we are measuring value based on impact on the world, then the scientist has greater value.

Our motivations are rooted in instinct, in one for or another. I have an instinctive desire to protect and care for other humans. Thus, they both have value. However, I would value the scientist more.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Our motivations are rooted in instinct, in one for or another.

And this brings us back to one of our earlier issues, that being "instinct," which as far as human instinct is concerned there is no clear understanding of it or agreement on it.

I have an instinctive desire to protect and care for other humans.

Many do not share that desire, and that is what it is, a personal desire, though you may try to paint it as an instinct by prefacing it with the adjectival form.

Look at our prisons; they sit as testimony with many cases of humans not protecting one another. Look at wars; there you will see the human group discarded in favor of nationalities or tribes. Look at slavery; there you will see the human group discarded in favor of economic profit from exploitation. Look at racism; there you will see the human group discarded in favor of prejudice based on race.

Your desire to protect and help humans is only all inclusive of humans merely because of the social forces that have moved history along -- or vice versa. It is not caused by instinct -- or at least you have not proven, or offered any proof that it is, while I have given you examples that show our species does not have some altruistic desire governing our conduct to one another as a species rather than groups. If what you said is true, we wouldn`t have had to have made such strides in social evolution and/or a sense of justice to mett out to offenders or go to war over.

Thus, they both have value. However, I would value the scientist more.

Now that we have established that you have recognized a heirarchy of order in regards to value within the human species, and since "value" has meaning to you within that order, then why wouldn`t you support human testing on less valuable humans so that the more valuable humans can benefit and therefore bring more benefit to society and therefore increase the value of society?

High value as opposed to low value is an advancement, isn`t it? Why wouldn`t you want to advance society in the most efficient way leading to the highest value?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Look at our prisons; they sit as testimony with many cases of humans not protecting one another. Look at wars; there you will see the human group discarded in favor of nationalities or tribes. Look at slavery; there you will see the human group discarded in favor of economic profit from exploitation. Look at racism; there you will see the human group discarded in favor of prejudice based on race.

And I might add, what about child abuse, child neglect, not to mention a child`s tendency to have a strong interest in helping animals but often times being quite cruel to one another? If instinct dictates that as a species we help our own before any others, then why do even orgs created for the sole protection of animals come about and attract many to their cause?

Again, what you refer to as instinct is more of desire, choice, or mere values from social conditioning from environment or education for any particular individual and not human race wide as a defalt (i.e. instinct).


---------------------------------------------------
*Since I added this several hours later, after which I think Captain Chaos had already read the previous post of mine, which this one quotes, I thought it not fair that I add it as an edit, in case he were to not go back and re-read the post it is supporting, and therefore just made a new post.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin And this brings us back to one of our earlier issues, that being "instinct," which as far as human instinct is concerned there is no clear understanding of it or agreement on it.

OK. Life is complicated. Even though it is not a simple issue, it still exists. For any motivation, if you ask yourself why you feel that way, you will get some other motivation. If you trace the chain of motivation back far enough, and you avoid circular reasoning, you will find yourself saying "I just feel that way". That is where you start coming into instincts.

Instinct is at the root, but obviously our motivations include lots of conditioning along the way.

I am really stating something very obvious. We are the product of nature and nurture. The nature part occurs before then nurturing part.

Many do not share that desire, and that is what it is, a personal desire, though you may try to paint it as an instinct by prefacing it with the adjectival form.

OK, but that does not change the fact that it is still instinctive in me. We do not all share the same instincts. It is also possible to overcome instinct. However, the desire to overcome those instincts is, ultimately, rooted in other instincts.

It is not caused by instinct -- or at least you have not proven, or offered any proof that it is, while I have given you examples that show our species does not have some altruistic desire governing our conduct to one another as a species rather than groups.

I am not saying that instincts are absolute. I am saying that they are at the root of our desires. Many times, instincts conflict. For example, the desire to keep what is yours is also instinctive. Anyone who has raised kids can attest to that.

then why wouldn`t you support human testing on less valuable humans so that the more valuable humans can benefit and therefore bring more benefit to society and therefore increase the value of society?

one does not lead to the other. Just because some humans are of less value than others does not mean they should be used for medical experiments. I believe the basic objection to using prisoners for medical experiments is that they are in a potentially abusive situation, where they cannot honestly give consent.

We place value both upon humans, and upon intelligence. We also place value upon self determination. These value lead to the laws we have today.

It is also a matter of not setting a precidence and thus avoiding a potentially corrupt system for human testing. It would not serve us for our government to be the architect of nightmare situations.


If precidence and corruption were not an issue, then I would certainly be fine with using child murderers for medical experiments. That would be one useful way for them to pay their debt to society. However, precidence and corruption are such significant issues that we cannot afford to go there.


As an aside, supporting that view is a fun way to piss off anti-death penalty types:

Oh, yeah, I totally agree. The death penalty is a terrible thing. Why kill them when they could be so much more useful for medical experiments.

That really gets a rise!

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos OK. Life is complicated. Even though it is not a simple issue, it still exists.

That is rather lazy thinking, CC. When someone argues for the belief in the Bible and rest their argument on "God is complicated. Even though, he or the Bible is not a simple issue, He still exists."

You don`t accept such simple reasoning from theists(or do you?), so it is inconsistant or dishonest of you to put forth a similar one now that conveniently ties up loose ends. Both rest on declarations.

For any motivation, if you ask yourself why you feel that way, you will get some other motivation. If you trace the chain of motivation back far enough, and you avoid circular reasoning, you will find yourself saying "I just feel that way". That is where you start coming into instincts.

The problem with that explanation is that people do not just "feel that way" consistantly, so it can`t be bringing one to instincts. All it is doing is bringing one to preferences and desires, perhaps even needs from nurture and conditioning, which you go into a little below. To say that is rubbing against instincts is a chasm you haven`t provided a bridge across that shows consistancy within the human species.

Instinct is at the root,...

Conjecture at best, declaration at worst.

... but obviously our motivations include lots of conditioning along the way.

Agreement there.

I am really stating something very obvious. We are the product of nature and nurture. The nature part occurs before then nurturing part.

Social biologists are not nearly in agreement as to what the true nature of homo sapiens are. And of indices that mark our nature, quite a few seem reprehensible -- such as a tendency to war within our species.

Since there is no clear cut image of our instincts, and we live in a society based on our nurturing, then that is what we must address -- for that is what can be known through social interaction, individual behaviour, and self-examination.

StrongHeartsWin:
Many do not share that desire, and that is what it is, a personal desire, though you may try to paint it as an instinct by prefacing it with the adjectival form.

OK, but that does not change the fact that it is still instinctive in me.

You mean "conditioned," for you. I will agree to that, but if you are going to use "instinct" then you have the burden to prove that that term, as used by most biologists, matches your usage of it. If not, then you are trying to bend the meaning and use of the term for your convenience.

Also, if it is for "you" then how/why can, or do you apply it (instincts) to the human species as an argument for not testing on us? I think you are conveniently extrapolating your own desires to apply to the whole species, particularly on the point of a word whose agreement has not been reached by experts as it regards humans.

Again, would you accept the argument that Bible God exists because someone says He exists for him, and therefore exists for the whole human race? Why is that reasonign based on what one believes or feels personally any different from what you have put forth? If you wouldn`t accept it from a theist, then why do you jump into the pool containing the same water of their reasoning?

We do not all share the same instincts.

We do not all share the same desires or "values,"(which we discussed above) and consequently the same behaviour extending from those values, and that is what is at the root of how you are using the word "instinct."

It is also possible to overcome instinct.

That is one of the points debatable amongst scholars concerning "instinct." That is far from decided.

However, the desire to overcome those instincts is, ultimately, rooted in other instincts.

Again, you are using a term not decided upon by experts as to what it is in homo sapiens that define that term regarding us. With the knowledge we have now, all we can accurately say modeling on your construct is:

However, the desire to overcome individual behaviour, is ultimately rooted in other desires.

I am not saying that instincts are absolute.

Then what makes an instinct different from mere individual behaviour? Are you saying individual behaviour is just instinct worded diffferently? If so, then why should a serial murderer be punished for acting instinctively? Is it instinctive for my uncle Charlie to just lay around the house on the sofa all day? Or any other of even more strange scenarios we both could conjure up?

I am saying that they are at the root of our desires. Many times, instincts conflict. For example, the desire to keep what is yours is also instinctive. Anyone who has raised kids can attest to that.

Where is the conflicting example? All I see is one example of child behaviour which could be applied to an instinct for possession or territoriality, which is displayed in many animals, making it nothing special in regards to us verses them (i.e. the animals) for considerations of "testing" or "not testing" on humans. So, what is that conflicting with?


------------------------
I will address the remainder of your response soon in a seperate post.

[StrongHeartsWin]

StrongHearts Win
Quote:
... then why wouldn`t you support human testing on less valuable humans so that the more valuable humans can benefit and therefore bring more benefit to society and therefore increase the value of society?

Quote by: Captain Chaos One does not lead to the other.

Not in every case, but it stands to reason that testing on the exact model for which the final purpose is for, is in general going to be quicker and more efficient in results. In the long run, efficiency towards the final goal has to be positive for what is valued most by those persons exploiting the recourse at hand.

Just because some humans are of less value than others does not mean they should be used for medical experiments.

Why not, if the more valuable who are saved, through their insight and intelligence, are able to contribute more to society and increase that value? Don`t forget, you used "value" as an axis for your argument on why we should test on animals and not human, so "value" is what should be maximized in the equation.

"Just because" is not really a good preface to begin a defense against it -- particularly when you have already admitted to value as the cornerstone for judging.

I believe the basic objection to using prisoners for medical experiments is that they are in a potentially abusive situation, where they cannot honestly give consent.

Why is consent an issue if they are less valuable? Why should the less valuables' consent be valued if it stands in the way of efficiency and adding more value to those who are valued more? Wouldn`t that lead to a greater intelligence level of the whole who by their collective intelligence could make even more correct decisions concerning the whole. The intelligence would keep feeding on itself getting more and more so intelligent which would lead to better decisions concerning the human the health and well being of the human race.

We place value both upon humans, ...

What characteristic of being human calls for us to do so? Just form, or certain capacities of our mind? Just one, or both? What if one is lacking? Does it just matter that something comes from the womb of a human?

...and upon intelligence.

Some, the retarded amongst us have intelligence below that of dogs. Don`t forget those in vegetative states as well.

We also place value upon self determination. These value lead to the laws we have today.

Some do not have the ability to be self determining.

It is also a matter of not setting a precidence and thus avoiding a potentially corrupt system for human testing. It would not serve us for our government to be the architect of nightmare situations.

Why would it necessarily be a nightmare for the scientists who gain more time for life at the expense of a less valuable person -- in our example -- the retarded. For them, it would be a good thing, and benefits from their intelligence and research could filter down to all others -- at least those who fall above the line of retarded or vegetative state, who if wards of the state would not be valued sentimentaly and probably would not have sentience, at least not as much as some animals could be measured by?

If precidence and corruption were not an issue, then I would certainly be fine with using child murderers for medical experiments. That would be one useful way for them to pay their debt to society. However, precidence and corruption are such significant issues that we cannot afford to go there.

How would guidelines set up to check corruption, even if not perfect, make it so unaffordable to go there, or why would precidence be a factor? Many precidences in the human experience have been for the good. You are stating more conjecture than anything else.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin What characteristic of being human calls for us to do so? Just form, or certain capacities of our mind? Just one, or both? What if one is lacking? Does it just matter that something comes from the womb of a human?

I believe that we have a natural desire to protect other members of our species. I guess you disagree. Regardless, we do feel this way. Not all of us, but most of us. I do.

Some, the retarded amongst us have intelligence below that of dogs. Don`t forget those in vegetative states as well.

I support allowing those in permanent vegetative states to die.

Regardless, they are human. Thus we desire to protect them.

Why not, if the more valuable who are saved, through their insight and intelligence, are able to contribute more to society and increase that value? Don`t forget, you used "value" as an axis for your argument on why we should test on animals and not human, so "value" is what should be maximized in the equation.

Our desire to protect other humans and avoid potentially corrupt situation is why, I believe, we do not experiment upon prisoners and people with brain deficiencies. If you believe there is some other set of reasons for this, what are they?



Regarding instinct:

Quote by: Dictionary.com 1. an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species. 2. a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency.

Are you suggesting that people do not have inborn patterns of activity? Are you suggesting that people do not have natural or innate tendencies?

Have you raised any children?

[Chaossaber314]

I think the voluntary human testing is an interesting topic.

Who is most likely to volunteer? The poor.
Who is more disproportionately poor? Minorities.

Yes... this would go over fantastically. At worst it's racist and at best it's class-ist.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I think the voluntary human testing is an interesting topic. Who is most likely to volunteer? The poor. Who is more disproportionately poor? Minorities. Yes... this would go over fantastically. At worst it's racist and at best it's class-ist.

You may have a different view if human testing would speed a drug to market much faster than animal testing to save your child from cancer.

It just may "go over fantastically" with those who are saved by it and economically helped by it.

Speciesism rests on the same reasoning as racism, minus the values inserted into the construct.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I believe that we have a natural desire to protect other members of our species. I guess you disagree. Regardless, we do feel this way. Not all of us, but most of us. I do.

Then that desire should clearly manifest itself before conditioning from environment asserts its influences in order for us to call or know it as as "natural." Small children, still not conditioned deeply, show a deep interest in wanting to help animals. How many little kids have brought home stray animals in the hopes of offering it nurturing and bringing it into the family, or picking up fallen birds from nests and trying to help them (I think many people have that experience in their first few years)? Few little kids in the inner cities, when for a moment playing alone outside, bring a homeless man into the house begging for mom and dad to let them help him or her.

Something does not seem "natural" in reality if what is "natural" must be conditioned.

It is not that I just disagree with you, I am showing you real world examples of holes in your thought on the issue of "natural" or "instincts" as it regards humans. Yes, substituting "instincts" for "natural" in prefacing "desires" did not go unnoticed by me, and it also did not rescue your assertion on the point.

Regardless, they are human. Thus we desire to protect them.

I asked you: what about human capacities is it that demands or dictates (or should demand or dictate) our desire to protect people? If it is not mental capacity, since you feel those in vegetative states should be protected more so than animals at higher states of sentience and cognitive ability, then I assume you are just referring to form only. Right?

What is so special about the human form -- more so than other animals? If a chimpanzee was born looking like a human, would it then be protected, even though it did not come up to the normal human level of intelligence, or itself were in a vegetative state? Or, if a human were born looking like a chimpanzee, and could not vocalize itself, seeming retarded, then would it be ok to use it for testing?

What is your introspection on that?

Our desire to protect other humans and avoid potentially corrupt situation is why, I believe, we do not experiment upon prisoners and people with brain deficiencies. If you believe there is some other set of reasons for this, what are they?

I believe our condtioned belief, most probably due to strong religious influences/roots placing man at the top, or between God and the animals, is what causes us to demote other animal life and target them for testing. While some are atheists, and may claim that is not so with them, they in effect are still caught up in a society which has been shaped by religion, which has throughout the ages been intricate parts of law and the lives of philosophers who shaped those laws with their ideas.

I think, as a general rule (minus the exceptions in history) we do not experiment on prisoners or those with brain deficiencies who cannot or will not give consent because it is not politically feasible to do so -- once again due to the religious influences that have a hold on the constituents. When a strong representative government breaks down or doesn`t come into being, then we do see experiments on those classes of people because the leaders are free from the restraints of the conditioned society (i.e. Japan and Nazi german testing on humans).

Now, I do not think we should test on people without consent, but at the same time, if a being cannot or does not give consent, then that logic must/should be doled out fairly on consistant criteria and consistant reasoning in order to protect them. If not, then one is left being unable to answer some of the situations I outlined above -- or answering them does so on questionable assumptions and values or justifications, which pivot upon the meanings of some crucial words and concepts that are either not fully defined or hotly divided on by scholars in certain areas of expertise.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I believe our conditioned belief, most probably due to strong religious influences/roots placing man at the top, or between God and the animals, is what causes us to demote other animal life and target them for testing.

Why did these strong religious influences arise to begin with? Why do humans acc