Scientific Activist goes to an Animal Rights Protest - Page 2

Roboramma · 26th January 2006, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by epepke

It doesn't make PETA's absolutist stance any less stupid beyond belief.

I agree that there is a lot of stupidity in animal right's activism. I think it's a pity, because if we are ever to take their concerns seriously, these groups need to make strong arguments that are based on more than just emotion.

I just hate the suggestion that one human life is somehow worth the lives of all the mice/rats/dogs/etc. in the world.
And I know that's not the equation in the testing that's being done - but it's an argument that is put forward here.

I would do a lot to protect those I love and care about, as well as for myself. I can understand the sentiment that the lives or suffering of rodents is meaningless compared to the life or suffering of this person sitting next to me, with whom I have shared a lot. But I find that to be an emotional argument - because we care more about humans their suffering is more meaningful.
In many ways I think it is more meaningful. But certainly not infinitely so.

I've not heard anyone give me an argument for why it should be concidered so- except that it is infinitely more meaningful to them. But the same sort of argument (not identical, but I hope you see the parallels) could be made for why the suffering of africans is meaningless so long as it helps the lives of north americans. After all, everyone I care about is from north america (actually, that's not true, but you get the point).

Wudang · 27th January 2006, 05:08 AM

Roborama, you think I say something I don't. I do not claim that animal suffering is meaningless in comparison. I do feel that human suffering is more "meaningful" (whatever that means) but recognise that assigning "meaning" to suffering is anthropocentric.
What I am saying is that any morality that does not take account of personal matters and views people as interchangeable units is deficient. Otherwise the moral principles derived from it are inapplicable in every day life. Sometimes of course that's all we can do.

Roboramma · 27th January 2006, 06:21 AM

I think I see your point. And I think I agree with it for the most part.

Say I'm on my way home, carrying some take-away for my girlfriend. I see someone in the street who's going hungry. Do I have a moral responsibility to give the food to him/her rather than my girlfriend? After all they both experience hunger in the same way, and this person needs the food more?

Of course I don't. If that's what you're saying, then certainly I agree with you.

On the other hand, if it was my girlfriend that was going hungry, and I saw someone walking down the street carrying some takeaway, I do think that morality suggests that I should not take it from that person.

Basically, I'm saying that I agree with you in that when determining who we are going to help, it's fine to think about who we care about more. But on the other hand, that doesn't mean that we have the right to hurt those that we care about less.

As to animal testing. I don't really know what my stance is. I certainly don't think the scientists involved are evil people. I admire them in many ways, and I know the work they do is helping to alleviate a great deal of suffering in the world. I respect that. I read an essay recently about diabetes and the discovery of insulin (The Bittersweet Science by Austin Bunn) in which brief mention is made of the dogs who were first tested (by the removal of their pancreas, and then given an injection from the macerated pancreas (either the one that was removed, or from calf fetuses) in the quest for a treatment for diabetes - leading to the discovery of insulin.

Anyway, on the one hand it seemed very cruel to me. On the other, look at the way in which is had changed so many (I would imagine millions of) lives. In this case at least, in spite of my misgivings, I can't say that I am anything but glad that it was done. Nor can I think of any way in which they would have been likely to have made a similar discovery without testing.

So I have no answers to offer. But I do think that we really need to look at this issue critically. It's very easy to say, "They are animals, they don't matter." I just think that if that stance is taken, some justification for it needs to be given. And I don't think any can be. Which leaves us with accounting, "Their suffering is less meaningful than those who will be helped by it." Okay, fair enough. But one wonders, then, why testing on humans, which in some cases could have a similar argument for it, is necessarily considered wrong.

Anyway, as I said, I have no answers. I just don't like the idea that we are willing to take advantage of creatures and do things to them that we would never allow to be done to ourselves just because it's easy to dissociate ourselves from them.

Jaggy Bunnet · 27th January 2006, 07:01 AM

What is PETA's stance on the testing of vet drugs?

What about drugs that could have both medical and vet applications?

Wudang · 27th January 2006, 07:19 AM

I am not saying that the personal factor is necessarily an overriding factor. I am simply saying that it is one factor that must be given weight which will vary from situation and by individual.

Art Vandelay · 27th January 2006, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by veggie doll

Those who support animal testing cannot have it both ways. Either they are so biologically dissimilar to us, that testing on them is pointless, or they have a biology close enough to ours that they should not be made to be put through so much pain and suffering.

That's a false dichtomy. There's no reason why rights must be tied to biology. If there were an alien species that has nothing in common with us biologically, would that mean they have no rights? Conversely, just because a creature is biologically similar to us doesn't mean it's morally similar.

Roboramma

Quote:

I've not heard anyone give me an argument for why it should be concidered so- except that it is infinitely more meaningful to them. But the same sort of argument (not identical, but I hope you see the parallels) could be made for why the suffering of africans is meaningless so long as it helps the lives of north americans. After all, everyone I care about is from north america (actually, that's not true, but you get the point).

Humans don't have more rights because we care about them, we care about them because they have more rights. An animal's suffering is not comparable to a human's because there is no person experiencing it. And by "person", I don't just mean "human", I mean conscious being.

brodski · 27th January 2006, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

What is PETA's stance on the testing of vet drugs?

What about drugs that could have both medical and vet applications?

I'm not sure about PETA in particular, but an examination of the security at Vet schools should give you some idea of the way some animal rights activists view it.

Amapola · 27th January 2006, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

What is PETA's stance on the testing of vet drugs?

What about drugs that could have both medical and vet applications?

Last I heard, PETA believed that all domestic animals would be better off dead than being "exploited" by humans. I think that is why they killed those dogs and cats they picked up at the humane society. Here is a link to the story.

Recently I was told by a supporter of PETA that they have changed their direction and are trying to get animals treated more humanely, but I have not seen any changes in their websites, so I think they are still going for (basically) NO domestic animals. (I am not 100% sure though, all I can do is hope they have changed their stance.) With no domestic animals there is really no need for drugs used for veterinary purposes. I would imagine they are against testing drugs for veterinary purposes too, since they think dogs and cats are better off dead than being someone's beloved pet.

Rolfe · 27th January 2006, 07:41 PM

I don't know about PETA, but many years ago I stupidly got into an argument with an animal-libber loon at a cat show. I was trying to explain to him that the research I was doing was for the benefit of the animals themselves, and elaborated that I personally worked by the rule that I would only do to an animal what I would volunteer to have done to me if the goal were to find out about human physiology (at the time there were a lot of people looking at exercise physiology, and I was looking at that aspect in the horse).

He soon revealed his true colours, that I shouldn't be keeping horses captive and riding them and evil cruel stuff like that anyway. I was still boggling at the idea of a thoroughbred racehorse being happy browsing on a prairie, when it became obvious that he also disapproved violently of the keeping of cats as pets. In spite of being surrounded by pet cats being lovingly shown off, and being there to prosyletise to their owners.

He was eventually thrown out when he tried to out me as a vivisector who was there to acquire cats for research. (I was actually there watching the sainted Rolfe just fail to make it to the Best in Show pen, in contrast to his usual habit, and fortunately the show organisers knew me very well.)

But that's their style.

Rolfe.

Roboramma · 28th January 2006, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

RoborammaHumans don't have more rights because we care about them, we care about them because they have more rights.

If this is true, then fair enough. But I was responding to Wudang's point that is the opposite.

Quote:

An animal's suffering is not comparable to a human's because there is no person experiencing it.

Then it isn't suffering at all. Suffering is an experience, so clearly, if you're right, then animals are incapable of suffering. If that is true, then certainly there is nothing wrong with animal testing any more than with rock testing. However, I don't think I can agree with the suppostion that all other animals are incapable of experience.

Quote:

And by "person", I don't just mean "human", I mean conscious being.

What leads you to the conclusion that no other animals are conscious beings?

brodski · 28th January 2006, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

He was eventually thrown out when he tried to out me as a vivisector who was there to acquire cats for research.

I know its not really funny, but I now have an image of you running round a cat show, with a butterfly net, snatching moggies right in front of the judges noses.

rjh01 · 28th January 2006, 02:33 AM

How about this point of view?
No group have any intrinsic rights whatever. They only rights they have are those that the people in power give them. We used to consider animals (children and married women) nothing but pieces of property and the owner could do anything they wanted. Now they have been given some rights. All what you are debating is what rights should we give various types of animals? This includes pets, farm animals, animals we conduct research on and wild animals, and pests.

26th January 2006, 09:07 PM	#41
Roboramma Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 7,099	Originally Posted by epepke It doesn't make PETA's absolutist stance any less stupid beyond belief. I agree that there is a lot of stupidity in animal right's activism. I think it's a pity, because if we are ever to take their concerns seriously, these groups need to make strong arguments that are based on more than just emotion. I just hate the suggestion that one human life is somehow worth the lives of all the mice/rats/dogs/etc. in the world. And I know that's not the equation in the testing that's being done - but it's an argument that is put forward here. I would do a lot to protect those I love and care about, as well as for myself. I can understand the sentiment that the lives or suffering of rodents is meaningless compared to the life or suffering of this person sitting next to me, with whom I have shared a lot. But I find that to be an emotional argument - because we care more about humans their suffering is more meaningful. In many ways I think it is more meaningful. But certainly not infinitely so. I've not heard anyone give me an argument for why it should be concidered so- except that it is infinitely more meaningful to them. But the same sort of argument (not identical, but I hope you see the parallels) could be made for why the suffering of africans is meaningless so long as it helps the lives of north americans. After all, everyone I care about is from north america (actually, that's not true, but you get the point).
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov

27th January 2006, 05:08 AM	#42
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,247	Roborama, you think I say something I don't. I do not claim that animal suffering is meaningless in comparison. I do feel that human suffering is more "meaningful" (whatever that means) but recognise that assigning "meaning" to suffering is anthropocentric. What I am saying is that any morality that does not take account of personal matters and views people as interchangeable units is deficient. Otherwise the moral principles derived from it are inapplicable in every day life. Sometimes of course that's all we can do.
	__________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke

27th January 2006, 06:21 AM	#43
Roboramma Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 7,099	I think I see your point. And I think I agree with it for the most part. Say I'm on my way home, carrying some take-away for my girlfriend. I see someone in the street who's going hungry. Do I have a moral responsibility to give the food to him/her rather than my girlfriend? After all they both experience hunger in the same way, and this person needs the food more? Of course I don't. If that's what you're saying, then certainly I agree with you. On the other hand, if it was my girlfriend that was going hungry, and I saw someone walking down the street carrying some takeaway, I do think that morality suggests that I should not take it from that person. Basically, I'm saying that I agree with you in that when determining who we are going to help, it's fine to think about who we care about more. But on the other hand, that doesn't mean that we have the right to hurt those that we care about less. As to animal testing. I don't really know what my stance is. I certainly don't think the scientists involved are evil people. I admire them in many ways, and I know the work they do is helping to alleviate a great deal of suffering in the world. I respect that. I read an essay recently about diabetes and the discovery of insulin (The Bittersweet Science by Austin Bunn) in which brief mention is made of the dogs who were first tested (by the removal of their pancreas, and then given an injection from the macerated pancreas (either the one that was removed, or from calf fetuses) in the quest for a treatment for diabetes - leading to the discovery of insulin. Anyway, on the one hand it seemed very cruel to me. On the other, look at the way in which is had changed so many (I would imagine millions of) lives. In this case at least, in spite of my misgivings, I can't say that I am anything but glad that it was done. Nor can I think of any way in which they would have been likely to have made a similar discovery without testing. So I have no answers to offer. But I do think that we really need to look at this issue critically. It's very easy to say, "They are animals, they don't matter." I just think that if that stance is taken, some justification for it needs to be given. And I don't think any can be. Which leaves us with accounting, "Their suffering is less meaningful than those who will be helped by it." Okay, fair enough. But one wonders, then, why testing on humans, which in some cases could have a similar argument for it, is necessarily considered wrong. Anyway, as I said, I have no answers. I just don't like the idea that we are willing to take advantage of creatures and do things to them that we would never allow to be done to ourselves just because it's easy to dissociate ourselves from them.
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov

27th January 2006, 07:19 AM	#45
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,247	I am not saying that the personal factor is necessarily an overriding factor. I am simply saying that it is one factor that must be given weight which will vary from situation and by individual.
	__________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke

27th January 2006, 01:41 PM	#47
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,089	Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet What is PETA's stance on the testing of vet drugs? What about drugs that could have both medical and vet applications? I'm not sure about PETA in particular, but an examination of the security at Vet schools should give you some idea of the way some animal rights activists view it.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,089

27th January 2006, 07:01 AM	#44
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,148	What is PETA's stance on the testing of vet drugs? What about drugs that could have both medical and vet applications?

27th January 2006, 01:29 PM	#46
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by veggie doll Those who support animal testing cannot have it both ways. Either they are so biologically dissimilar to us, that testing on them is pointless, or they have a biology close enough to ours that they should not be made to be put through so much pain and suffering. That's a false dichtomy. There's no reason why rights must be tied to biology. If there were an alien species that has nothing in common with us biologically, would that mean they have no rights? Conversely, just because a creature is biologically similar to us doesn't mean it's morally similar. Roboramma Quote: I've not heard anyone give me an argument for why it should be concidered so- except that it is infinitely more meaningful to them. But the same sort of argument (not identical, but I hope you see the parallels) could be made for why the suffering of africans is meaningless so long as it helps the lives of north americans. After all, everyone I care about is from north america (actually, that's not true, but you get the point). Humans don't have more rights because we care about them, we care about them because they have more rights. An animal's suffering is not comparable to a human's because there is no person experiencing it. And by "person", I don't just mean "human", I mean conscious being.

27th January 2006, 06:19 PM	#48
Amapola Pirate Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Mora, New Mexico Posts: 8,260	Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet What is PETA's stance on the testing of vet drugs? What about drugs that could have both medical and vet applications? Last I heard, PETA believed that all domestic animals would be better off dead than being "exploited" by humans. I think that is why they killed those dogs and cats they picked up at the humane society. Here is a link to the story. Recently I was told by a supporter of PETA that they have changed their direction and are trying to get animals treated more humanely, but I have not seen any changes in their websites, so I think they are still going for (basically) NO domestic animals. (I am not 100% sure though, all I can do is hope they have changed their stance.) With no domestic animals there is really no need for drugs used for veterinary purposes. I would imagine they are against testing drugs for veterinary purposes too, since they think dogs and cats are better off dead than being someone's beloved pet.

27th January 2006, 07:41 PM	#49
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,340	I don't know about PETA, but many years ago I stupidly got into an argument with an animal-libber loon at a cat show. I was trying to explain to him that the research I was doing was for the benefit of the animals themselves, and elaborated that I personally worked by the rule that I would only do to an animal what I would volunteer to have done to me if the goal were to find out about human physiology (at the time there were a lot of people looking at exercise physiology, and I was looking at that aspect in the horse). He soon revealed his true colours, that I shouldn't be keeping horses captive and riding them and evil cruel stuff like that anyway. I was still boggling at the idea of a thoroughbred racehorse being happy browsing on a prairie, when it became obvious that he also disapproved violently of the keeping of cats as pets. In spite of being surrounded by pet cats being lovingly shown off, and being there to prosyletise to their owners. He was eventually thrown out when he tried to out me as a vivisector who was there to acquire cats for research. (I was actually there watching the sainted Rolfe just fail to make it to the Best in Show pen, in contrast to his usual habit, and fortunately the show organisers knew me very well.) But that's their style. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

28th January 2006, 01:44 AM	#50
Roboramma Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 7,099	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay RoborammaHumans don't have more rights because we care about them, we care about them because they have more rights. If this is true, then fair enough. But I was responding to Wudang's point that is the opposite. Quote: An animal's suffering is not comparable to a human's because there is no person experiencing it. Then it isn't suffering at all. Suffering is an experience, so clearly, if you're right, then animals are incapable of suffering. If that is true, then certainly there is nothing wrong with animal testing any more than with rock testing. However, I don't think I can agree with the suppostion that all other animals are incapable of experience. Quote: And by "person", I don't just mean "human", I mean conscious being. What leads you to the conclusion that no other animals are conscious beings?
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov

28th January 2006, 02:28 AM	#51
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,089	Originally Posted by Rolfe He was eventually thrown out when he tried to out me as a vivisector who was there to acquire cats for research. I know its not really funny, but I now have an image of you running round a cat show, with a butterfly net, snatching moggies right in front of the judges noses.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,089

28th January 2006, 02:33 AM	#52
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,198	How about this point of view? No group have any intrinsic rights whatever. They only rights they have are those that the people in power give them. We used to consider animals (children and married women) nothing but pieces of property and the owner could do anything they wanted. Now they have been given some rights. All what you are debating is what rights should we give various types of animals? This includes pets, farm animals, animals we conduct research on and wild animals, and pests.