Animal Tests

[Captain Chaos]

If you do not mind, just play along with me for a while, and the point I am trying to make will become clear.

Quote by: SHW Wanting explanations for what they cannot explain.

Why do people want explanations for what they cannot explain?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos If you do not mind, just play along with me for a while, and the point I am trying to make will become clear.

I don`t mind, but I see you have not answered quite a few questions put forth above.

Why do people want explanations for what they cannot explain?

I think what is not known is feard. Ultimately, there is a fear of death, or the ravages and misfortunes that can lead to it.

Being able to explain things through religion can soothe that fear, give meaning to it (no matter how delusional it is), and for the more astute, allow one to exploit others to empower themselves for either power itself, or the comforts that come along with it and/or economic gain.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW Ultimately, there is a fear of death, or the ravages and misfortunes that can lead to it.

Why do people fear death?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Why do people fear death?

Because it is an unknown.

CC, I think you are just trying to get me to admit that there is such thing as instinct, right? I have never said that there weren`t, but what they are and how they are applied with prejudice with "value" as the axis for determining it ok to test on animals is by far not supported, or even proven.

For the record, in case you are misreading something I have written; instincts do exist, but so do compassion, empathy ,and mercy that we have seen time and again displayed across species. Does that mean that it is instinctive to do so?

You stated previously that humans instinctively help/value there own species above others (paraphrased), which is true in a prejudicial sense based more on groupings and political realities, and perhaps more so in a conditioned sense. Then, I gave you the example of children, prior to strong social influence, showing a tendency to nurture other species, requesting that their parents let them bring it into the family so that they can look after it and take care of it, but children do not do so to homeless people (or at least not in general). You have not addressed that. It points to a clear and very wide hole in your belief about instincts -- or you are confused on what is the difference between instincts, individual behaviour, and conditioning are.

[Pockets]

Why do people want explanations for what they cannot explain?

Purpose and control.

Why do people fear death?

It is one thing they will never be able to gain any insite as to how it works. Until, of course.... That's why it is "The Great Unknown".
All this ties into that otherthread about Darwin and Him. Gods were contrived to explain the things we could not explain. It gave man a sense of control were none existed. The same premise fuels the market for psychics and mediums. People feel they have little or no control. A 'medium' will tell you what is going on and is going to happen. Your desire to know is what they prey on. A few general statements applicable to potentially anyone plus your desire to be enlightened equals 100 bucks for Madame Zorba.

[Pockets]

Quote by: Captain Chaos If you do not mind, just play along with me for a while, and the point I am trying to make will become clear. Why do people want explanations for what they cannot explain?

Quote by: einned Hey people, I have got an internship at an University in the Netherlands we make peptides and DNA that are somtimes being used with animal tests to see what the effect is. This primarily used for the study of medicine and I wondered what you guys think of this. Should we be looking for other options as a society?

I think our use of animals is warranted. I don't like it. I think we can make it far less pervasive than it was. However I am all for finding out certain chemicals should not be in our consumable products by testing on any animal. Where would we be without monkeys and chickens when we needed to mass produce certain breakthrough vaccines in the previous century. At the end of the day I am not a guinea pig. A guinea pig is a guinea pig.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW or you are confused on what is the difference between instincts, individual behaviour, and conditioning are.

I am quite clear.

I believe we are making progress here. So, we agree that people have instincts. The relevant instincts here are kindness and empathy - this applies to both humans and animals.

When humans see other humans in pain, they feel empathy, and desire to help those humans. This also applies to humans feeling empathy for animals.

Do we agree that kindness and empathy are natural?


I will address your other points, fear not. I am just pointing out that, at some point, our value system is rooted in instinct. Nurturing makes an enormous difference as to how those instincts combine and manifest.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Do we agree that kindness and empathy are natural?

Yes, we agree. But, each exist on a spectrum with the negative occupying the other end. The existance of the positive entails the existence of the negative, too.

Unkindness(i.e. cruelty)<---------------------------------------------->Kindness


nonempathy<--------------------------------------->empathy

I think you are trying too hard to transform "natural" into "instincts" as clearly being identified within the human species.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Yes, we agree. But, each exist on a spectrum with the negative occupying the other end. The existance of the positive entails the existence of the negative, too. Unkindness(i.e. cruelty)<---------------------------------------------->Kindness nonempathy<--------------------------------------->empathy I think you are trying too hard to transform "natural" into "instincts" as clearly being identified within the human species.

OK, I agree with your scales here. We have a natural capacity for evil and kindness.

Now...

People who support animal testing are placing higher value upon the benefit to humans. They feel it is worth the harm they are causing. This is because their combination of nature and nurture has brought them to a point where they do not give animals equal consideration of interest.

Is this correct?

[Pockets]

Quote by: Captain Chaos OK, I agree with your scales here. We have a natural capacity for evil and kindness. Now... People who support animal testing are placing higher value upon the benefit to humans. They feel it is worth the harm they are causing. This is because their combination of nature and nurture has brought them to a point where they do not give animals equal consideration of interest. Is this correct?

Of course it is. Lower animals do not get equal consideration of interest. Do you feel they should? How about this. If you make a decision for your family, will you give mine equal consideration should that decision impact my family at an equal level?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos OK, I agree with your scales here. We have a natural capacity for evil and kindness. Now... People who support animal testing are placing higher value upon the benefit to humans. They feel it is worth the harm they are causing. This is because their combination of nature and nurture has brought them to a point where they do not give animals equal consideration of interest. Is this correct?

To be accuarate, it should read:

Those people who support animal testing are placing higher value upon the benefit to humans. Those people feel it is worth the harm they are causing. This is because their combination of nature and nurture has brought them to a point where they do not give animals equal consideration of interest.

This is far from a species' instincts of "value" and more akin to choice due to feelings(most probably conditioned), political realities, and prejudiced reasoning influenced by a certain time in a certain society.

What would you say to the society and time period sixty years ago?:

Those Germans who support testing of Jews are placing higher value upon the benefit to Aryian Germans. Those Germans feel it is worth the harm they are causing. This is because their combination of nature and nurture has brought them to a point where they do not give Jews equal consideration of interest.

Or substitute Japanese and POWs. I think you are left with my statement preceding it, rather than a path to instincts or a common altruistic value we hold without the force of law or social norms of any particular society guiding us/them in actions?

I asked for your introspection on form. Since you already accepted that you value humans differently according to their mental capacities in what they can offer to society; if a human, gave birth to a baby (unable to develope communication) looking like a chimpanzee in the view of others, would it then be ok to test on it? Or if a chimpanzee gave birth to a baby which looked like a human ("a" case: able to develope communication, "b" case: unable to develope communication), would it not be ok to test on it?

[Captain Chaos]

Those Germans who support testing of Jews are placing higher value upon the benefit to Aryian Germans. Those Germans feel it is worth the harm they are causing. This is because their combination of nature and nurture has brought them to a point where they do not give Jews equal consideration of interest.

Surely this is an accurate statement? I do not subscribe to this way of thinking, but surely the saw Jews as being of such low value, that they felt it was ok to do that?

if a human, gave birth to a baby (unable to develope communication) looking like a chimpanzee in the view of others, would it then be ok to test on it?

I value both intelligence and human life. I realize you believe that my valuing human life is not instinctive - I think it is, in part. However, regardless of how I got this way, I do value human life.

There are exceptions.

Also, the parents of such a child would likely voice strong objections.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Also, the parents of such a child would likely voice strong objections.

Consider them to have become parentless due to some circumstances shortly after birth.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Consider them to have become parentless due to some circumstances shortly after birth.

At present, most humans do not like to see other humans being tortured, or experimented upon in brutal ways.

Can we agree that a combination of nature and nurture has lead to people feeling this way? I might believe that nature plays a larger role than you believe it does - but we seem to agree that the combination of nature and nurture is what leads us to our belief systems.

In that absence of a universal moral standard, I believe a process of social darwinism leads to the most successful moral systems becoming dominant.

[StrongHeartsWin]

We might be able to agree on some part of that, CC, but I have to ask you: What is the difference between instinct, individual behaviour, and conditioning?

Above you use nurture, which I think we can both agree on as to a general meaning -- whether that be nurture in hominids or any other mammal. However, nature is a slippery term, and indeed, philosophers and social scientists have been trying to nail down the nature of man(good and bad) for centuries without success. So, it may very well be a combination of the two, but one side of the equation is a big unknown "X", and since empathy, compassion, and mercy seem to occupy someplace within our nature, there is no real reason, other than prejudice or discrimination to say that animals are not deserving of those traits, which humans do show an inclination toward displaying to them before strong conditioning comes into play. Even some, and an increasing number of humans, are carrying that into adulthood as they question or rebel against the traditional conditioning of their upbringing and society.

Quote by: CaptainChaos At present, most humans do not like to see other humans being tortured, or experimented upon in brutal ways.

At present, most humans do not like to see other animals being tortured, or experimented upon in brutal ways.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW What is the difference between instinct, individual behaviour, and conditioning?

I believe individual behavior, and individual values, are the result of a complex combination of instinct and conditioning. The instinct, which is encoded in our DNA obviously occurs before the conditioning.

At present, most humans do not like to see other animals being tortured, or experimented upon in brutal ways.

True - this is because we possess empathy, which I believe is natural to us. By this, I mean instinctive.

Empathy makes sense - tribes that care about each other would be more likely to survive.

But...

Eating other animals also comes naturally to us, and makes sense from a survival perspective.


From an empathy perspective (and a health perspective) it makes sense not to eat animals that experience complex emotions, and feel sadness while being penned up.

That is an appeal to emotion and instinct, which I agree with.

I think if you trace any higher-order animal-rights reasoning back to its roots, and avoid circular reasoning, you will find emotion and instinct at the core.

[Osborn F Enready]

Excellent post Chaos, and very well worded.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: SHW
What is the difference between instinct, individual behaviour, and conditioning?

Quote by: Captain Chaos I believe individual behavior, and individual values, are the result of a complex combination of instinct and conditioning. The instinct, which is encoded in our DNA obviously occurs before the conditioning.

CC, you just told me what you believe individual behaviour and values are (premising them on instinct, which you have not identified yet as a marker of our species for the point in question i.e. value), and did not explain what the differences are. Of course, you can`t explain what the differences are, because you don`t know what human instincts are, and have not shown any that are fixed within us that are not in-flux, if indeed they can be in-flux or not applicable to all on the point of "value.".

Look:

I believe my luxurious house, and the detatched garage, are the result of a complex combination of architects, electricians, plumbers, and builders. Specialized skills, which they all possess, obviously occurred before the construction of my house.

Now, if prior to that description, I had been tasked to explain the differences between each of those components and results of those components, i.e. my house and garage, I could do so, and would do so, without just putting them in a sentence together like that to state a general sum of all the total working together. That is what you have done. You have not explained the differences.

Again, what are the differences?

I can explain with positives and negatives about the differences. Example:

My house is the unit where I dwell, cook, bath, sleep, eat, watch TV. It is not the detatched smaller building where I keep my car.

An architect designed the structures. The architect did not build them.

The electrician studied wiring. He did not study plumbing.

and so on...

So, what are the differences between instinct, individual behaviour, and conditioning?

[StrongHeartsWin]

At present, most humans do not like to see other animals being tortured, or experimented upon in brutal ways.

Quote by: Captain Chaos True - this is because we possess empathy, which I believe is natural to us. By this, I mean instinctive. Empathy makes sense - tribes that care about each other would be more likely to survive.

Great. I think we are progressing.

A tribe is not a human species -- it is a sub-group discriminating itself from within a larger group (homo-sapiens), only a rung down on the ladder from the sub-group homo-sapien discriminating itself from within a larger group (mammilian).

Ok, I think we have come to an agreement then, that the target of empathy, from human species perspective, is not instinctually applied to just one`s group, no matter how encompassing or narrow that may be -- at least in the case of mammals, for while we as a species show empathy to our own, we also quite regularly extend that to other species.

If you insist on saying we instinctually show more empathy to our own, then I would have to insist on you explaining why do children, before social conditioning has strongly exerted itself on them, seem to show an affinity towards showing empathy and nurture to animals, more so than to adults, when an adult could in all probability offer more protection and guarantee the survival of the child more so than an animal, thereby gaining from reciprocation -- but they (human children) do not necessarily, and for the most part, do not extend themselves to strangers of their own species.

But... Eating other animals also comes naturally to us, and makes sense from a survival perspective.

Being opportunistic comes naturally and makes sense from a survival perspective WHEN the urgent need of survival is pressing. When it is not, empathy and compassion, sense of justice, and cooperation is the hallmark that allows for peace, rule of law, and the building of civilizations.

Just because something seems to come natural to us, does not mean we as a species, having the ability to not be controlled by our passions, should continue to indulge in that. Territoriality seems to come natural to us as well, and indeed, those sub-groups of tribes (passing on their genetics) within the homosapien species have profitted from being more efficient at killing the other tribes and eliminating those genetic lines. Would you argue that we should try to erase our tendency toward territorial nature?

From an empathy perspective (and a health perspective) it makes sense not to eat animals that experience complex emotions, and feel sadness while being penned up. That is an appeal to emotion and instinct, which I agree with.

Aside from the topic of animal testing, then you would support not killing those of complex emotions for food e.g. cetaceans and primates, or even any of those who experience sadness while penned up, right? But those who fall below a certain level of complex emotions or which do not experience sadness you would? How would you judge? and why would a brain dead, not cared about human, be, or should be spared the same fate of those otherwise? And then why is all this seperate from animal testing?

Are you saying your final argument rests on sentimentality for the human form, much like Christians being sentimental about what they believe about their God and his son, taking the form of man and experiencing pain and sadness?

I think if you trace any higher-order animal-rights reasoning back to its roots, and avoid circular reasoning, you will find emotion and instinct at the core.

So, animal rights reasoning, in addition to having the element of emotion, which you agree with, is also based on instinct? If so, then you should be for animal rights since you are trumpeting both and claim both.

Surely you see that you are letting sentimental feelings for the mere material form of the human body get in the way of your reasoning, don`t you? You are not being consistent. You have not shown any circular reasoning on the part of ARists, other than just declaring, and you seem to be trying to wear two hats at the same time.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW A tribe is not a human species -- it is a sub-group discriminating itself from within a larger group (homo-sapiens), only a rung down on the ladder from the sub-group homo-sapien discriminating itself from within a larger group (mammilian).

I was explaining why empathy would evolve

If you insist on saying we instinctually show more empathy to our own, then I would have to insist on you explaining why do children, before social conditioning has strongly exerted itself on them, seem to show an affinity towards showing empathy and nurture to animals, more so than to adults, when an adult could in all probability offer more protection and guarantee the survival of the child more so than an animal, thereby gaining from reciprocation -- but they (human children) do not necessarily, and for the most part, do not extend themselves to strangers of their own species.

Little kids also demonstrate the same affection towards human babies - they like things that are cute and fuzzy. Little kids are not so inclined to be protective of roaches and lizards.

From an instinctive/natural perspective, this makes sense. Things that we perceive as loving and kind are things that we are likely to be loving and kind towards - human or animal.

But... Many many species exhibit a desire to protect the young of their species. The fact that humans readily adopt indicates a willingness to protect the young of our species even when they are not our offspring. There are obvious reasons why this trait would evolve in a social species like ourselves.

However... We mustn't underestimate the power of conditioning. Regardless of whether or not we have certain instincts, they cal almost always be overcome with sufficient conditioning. It seems to me that this makes it very difficult to establish whether or not a given behavior is more a product of instinct, or more a product of conditioning, in any given individual.

Being opportunistic comes naturally and makes sense from a survival perspective WHEN the urgent need of survival is pressing. When it is not, empathy and compassion, sense of justice, and cooperation is the hallmark that allows for peace, rule of law, and the building of civilizations.

Eating animals does not prevent empathy, compassion, a sense of justice, and cooperation towards other humans.

Would you argue that we should try to erase our tendency toward territorial nature?

No. We should work with it and direct it, because our natural inclination for wanting to protect what is ours is exceedingly powerful, and at the same time can be quite useful.

Aside from the topic of animal testing, then you would support not killing those of complex emotions for food e.g. cetaceans and primates, or even any of those who experience sadness while penned up, right?

I have been of a mixed mind on that topic for a long time now. Ideally, farm animals should live happy lives, then be killed in a fashion that is non-stressful to them. I guess this is part of the appeal to organic farming for many people.

Pretty much the only meats I eat these days are fish and fowl, because I am apparently predisposed towards high cholesterol and high blood pressure.

But those who fall below a certain level of complex emotions or which do not experience sadness you would? How would you judge?

Observations and knowledge of neural anatomy.

and why would a brain dead, not cared about human, be, or should be spared the same fate of those otherwise?

Brain dead humans should be allowed to die, and their organs should be used to save the lives of others.

Are you saying your final argument rests on sentimentality for the human form

Firstly, I have no final argument. I am saying that I believe people do instinctively care for the human form. There are obvious reasons why we would have evolved to be like that. Regardless of how we got that way - humans do care for the human form.

Personally, I care more about complexity of thought.

If an animal is well-cared for, leads an obviously happy life, then is killed and eaten in a fast and painless fashion - I would be OK with that, depending on a few other variables as well.

That is most certainly NOT what happens with corporate farming.

As for animal testing - I believe the animal rights claim that we could accomplish nearly as much without animal testing to be simply false. However, I think there are clearly many cases of unnecessarily abusive animal tests.

So, animal rights reasoning, in addition to having the element of emotion, which you agree with, is also based on instinct?

Rooted in instinct. All morals are, ultimately, rooted in instinct. This is unavoidable. If you ask what caused you to feel a certain way, the cause of that feeling will precede the effect in time. If you trace the chain of cause and effect backwards far enough, you will wind up at a time before you were old enough to have been conditioned. Instincts precede conditioning on a person's timeline.

Surely you see that you are letting sentimental feelings for the mere material form of the human body get in the way of your reasoning, don`t you?

No. If we trace back the chain of cause and effect that causes you to adhere to your set of principles, we will find plenty of sentimentality and instinctive emotions.

You are not being consistent. You have not shown any circular reasoning on the part of ARists, other than just declaring, and you seem to be trying to wear two hats at the same time.

Don't know what you mean about two hats. I am simply expressing my feelings and beliefs, which are in some conflict on some areas of this issue.


If you think your belief system is not rooted in instinct, and is not circular, then let's test this. Short answers, please:

Q1) Why do you feel animals should be given equal consideration of interest?