https://www.purdue.edu/research/regulatory-affairs/animal-re...
The average scientist could be much more moral than the average human, and you could still get the occasional mad man; just need a large enough population of scientists.
800,000.
You used ketamine for all of them?
YES.
Thats a lot of ketamine
YES.
Can you show us the mice?
NO.
Why not
We disposed of their bodies after the experiment.
Then how can we verify the data from the experiment?
Give us ketamine for 800,000 more mice
"The line of argument supports the prevention of the existence of an undefined number of living beings to max. the quality of life of other existing living beings."
The argument doesn't seem to me as simple as you are portraying it and I don't see where you got the extermination part from.
The comment I was responding to said nothing about increasing the quality of life of any living beings. It only asserted that non-existence is a good thing. I made the assumption that they came to that conclusion based on the reasoning that a pig that does not exist cannot suffer. I made the extension that you can also prevent suffering by immediately ending a life. Yes, there is a distinction between failing to breed another generation and immediately killing all members of the current generation but the end result is the same.
this phrasing is really disingenuous. What I said was non-existence in case of farm pigs is a good thing. Try to make less sweeping over-generalized statements, especially when responding to people who aren't doing that
> I made the extension that you can also prevent suffering by immediately ending a life
oh cool thought, did you just bring that up to argue with yourself? Because no one said anything like that prior.
you are conflating birth control with "exterminate", not the same thing. Birth control has its roles, does it not?
> in order to provide the maximal amount of pleasure for those remaining.
I never said that, pleasure is an example, society is optimized for way more variables that suffering and pleasure.
In the context of farm animals, it looks like the only purpose for the pigs to exist is to be food, then when the food is over-produced and wasted, then you have to question why have that many of them born into a miserable life then die pointlessly.
> Not any better
just say it like that, no explanation? What is not good? Optimization?
I love it when people are so argumentative about such a simple thing. We are talking about birth control, there is no individual exists to make any choice.
> Projecting human characteristics onto an amoral natural world.
this is not a bad thing comparing to the alternative which is assuming that animals are too dumb to be sympathize with
Also live stock is much worse than slavery
From the article:
“This is a truly remarkable breakthrough,” [the patient] said in a statement. “As a heart transplant recipient, myself with a genetic heart disorder, I am thrilled by this news and the hope it gives to my family and other patients who will eventually be saved by this breakthrough.”
I feel like OP is being strawmanned. It's not like dexwiz said "fuck pigs test em more".
Ironically, you accuse people of "strawmanning", and then proceed do the same to me.
Perhaps take a leaf out of your own book and stop assuming intent.
Have a splendid day.
> but they were ignoring the original call to express sympathy to these animals.
How is this not asking people to show sympathy?
But dexwiz apparently enquired, or was at least aware that it seemed to have a reasonably good life. I guess that addressed my comment.
But if a human was being experimented without their informed choice we would have a moral obligation to try to inform them, free them, to enquire about their welfare. What's the basis for thinking it be so different for other animals?
And if you're thinking 'but we can't obtain their informed choice' maybe we have our answer.
As for the loved one argument, probably. But that wouldn't necessarily make me right. In fact my proximity to the situation would probably make any objective evaluation of what's right or wrong impossible. That would effectively remove my credibility as a reasonable interlocutor when discussing the ethics at all, like a cop in a ticking time-bomb scenario isn't the best person to call on to craft torture policy.
It wasn't my intention to judge (I don't know your position on anything) it just stood out to me. Animals often aren't treated with much respect or concern, especially ones suffering for our benefit. That's not a comment on you.
You should read ‘ The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas’.
I think these statements justify animal trials and using it to benefit humans definitely. But it doesn't justify or make better that it's still an awful thing to do to an animal and for the animal I think. It's weird right like where they get the blood of some sort of poor little sea creature that's got a blue copper containing blood it's just awful.
I really think we need to revise and reform a lot of how industry interacts with and especially commoditizes animals. I'm not saying we need to be vegans at all but I think there's so much room for improving how we talk think and act about this stuff. To make I guess what is probably an obvious point but I think the reasonableness of that point is not obvious but I think it can be a reasonable and obvious point without really attacking anybody and that non-threatening nature of that reasonable and obvious point I think is what is important about what I'm saying. It's possible. Less this comment be dismissed as some sort of low effort outrage--my heart's beating 50 beats a minute right now I'm not upset. I just think we can improve things there massively but that doesn't make anybody a monster.
Not only we can heat... we stuff our faces into it several times a day and we keep rearranging the forms we eat it.
We even make an effort to make it more enticing to children in the form of small golden nuggets like it's some sort of a treasure of flavor.
Heck yea, it is!
The post was about human consideration of animals as a resource generally.
It's not much of an argument saying that since eating animals is a thing, (the comfortably narrowly selected example of) other things we do with them is no cause for questions.
> ... I really think we need to revise ...
> ... I'm not saying we need to be vegans ...
> ... improving how we talk think and act about ...
Not that someone (as in anyone, as in "no one can understand"), just that particular someone, owing to their criticism saying, "Given you think X, you should also think Y" indicates they don't understand what I think.
> "reduce",
As in take what I say or think, and misinterpret it, reduce it down to something that seems to not make sense.
> or "invalidate" another's morals
Yeah, because someone else's misunderstanding and misinterpretation doesn't touch and certainly doesn't invalidate my actual moral sensitivity. So whatever that is, this person's criticism did not affect that and is not about that. Even tho it presents itself as being so...which is deceptive...
So much on the internet is making a point out of a misinterpretation of what other's are saying. So it's vital to reframe and point that out...otherwise you end up arguing on terms which you didn't set, which are self-serving to the (accidental? sometimes) provocateur/trix and which aren't anything to do with what you're saying. It's easy to get dragged off your point into a logically coherent cul-de-sac which has nothing to do with your stance but somehow, because you didn't point out the deceptive reframing, you are arguing it as if it does have to do with your stance. I think a lot of damage gets done that way. It's important to avoid it.
So..in that spirit...what was your misinterpreted reframing (whether deliberate or accidental)....?
Basically this: You are saying that I am suggesting that we cannot invalidate another's morals, while saying you think that's exactly what I'm doing.
Actually I'm not saying we cannot invalidate/understand other's morals--I'm saying if you don't understand (or if you do misinterpret <=> "reduce") my point of view, whatever you say about it doesn't, and can't, invalidate it. I doubt you'd disagree with that: e.g. An argument that claims to square the circle without grasping the problem, does not succeed, despite the true believer's fervent insistence.
But I'm also not making some general point in that response about "No One Can Invalidate Any One's Morals". That's a reductive/misinterpretation an (evil / deliberate / accidental) reframing. I'm talking about me, specifically. Me personally.
So all I'm is protecting my moral sensitivity, which I like very much, thank you, from random invalid criticism--which if I was to let them get to me, would really hurt. Why would you want to get in the way of that, or try to contradict me? Like...you'd like to see me hurt? That's not very good.
Think about it: So, I'm just supposed to think--oh, I spent my life developing my moral sensitivity, through all my experiences, and reflections upon those, and some random comes along on the internet--and proved that I'm wrong: so I was wrong about everything that happened in my life, I failed to properly grasp my experiences, I came to the wrong conclusions. I've been wrong about everything. Man that would be painful! And really upsetting, and imbalancing. Why would you want someone to go through that? You really think, that's what I deserve? Just imagine everything you thought you understood, was founded on a lie--a lie ensured, basically by your own self-deceptive, self-serving stupidity. And some random on the internet made you realize that! Well, I would think that way--if I thought they actually clearly saw what I think, and understood it, and presented it faithfully. But they didn't.
Can you grasp how incredibly painful it would be to go through that? So all I'm doing is not making that much of what people say on the internet. But being clear about how I'm doing it, and why. Does that make sense?
I mean someone could hit on exactly the thread that unravels my fragile sense of self...if that's what I had. But I think my sense of self is more robust than that, forged by fires of many different difficult and joyous experiences. But it's still possible for me to be deceiving myself, and I'm still open to hearing that and having my mind and heart opened by some random, and seeing their point of view. That empathy is exactly why I need a strong defense as well--if I was to take on everything that people said about what I said, as if they were right...just because I could see and feel how they thought that way...it would be too much. Just because they have a view, doesn't mean it's right...and actually it would be stupid of me to act like other people were always right. And this time, this guy wasn't. Sometimes people are tho...But normally people who are so insightful as to be able to pull on the thread that unravels you...know what they are doing (because it's no mean skill) and they deliver it with compassion. So a good first level filter (which isn't always accurate), is: does this person show any real understanding of me, or compassion? If the answer is no--odds are they have no idea what they are talking about about you.
But sometimes, people do get it right. And show me something I would rather not face about myself. And when that happens I just go to pieces and then try to pick up the pieces...To incorporate that new truth into my being. I rework everything to better face the world and reality the way it is. Luckily, it doesn't happen all that often. Which makes sense because I've always been like this: I spent the time, doing me, and reflecting on many things, and someone else is not just going to come along and see all that and get it, and say, "Oh, you know in this life long personal project of yourself being you, I saw a spot you missed. Here" But sometimes they do. But mostly...they are people who know you very well, and who deliver it with compassion. But most of those evolutions just come from myself, looking at the world and evolving in line with it. Because I know me best, and can take care of me best. As is the case for basically everyone. But we also all have blindspots and so being open to learn from others, to empathize with their view, being able to be wrong...is a requirement for ending up being right. I'm sure you'd agree. It's like the true spirit of the scientific method applied to personal development...
But being right about me, doesn't make me right about others...But being perceptive and insightful makes me more likely to be right...But even so, none of that really matters here, because I'm not trying to tug on a thread that unravels someone...I'm not speaking about anyone in particular in the quotes you give, just about the trope talking points, and zeitgeist discourse "current thinking" about this topic. So when I am talking like I understand it, I'm not contradicting myself because I wasn't saying, "no one can understand anyone else". And I think I'm leaving the barn doors wide open, I don't think I'm reducing or misinterpreting anything there, mainly because I'm being so general. Am I invalidating the moral sensitivity, of hypothetical people who I don't mention as individuals (but rather address as the collective 'we', of which I am a part) by saying 'improving how we talk think and act about'...Invalidating? I'd say more encouraging a correction. Does that mean I'm saying it's wrong? Well, it's not as right as a way we can do it better. But I'm specifically saying, that point can be made, without turning anyone into a monster. And it's important to do that...So my point is very much not about "making wrong" or "invalidating". What's important is we can make it better.
Like, that's a real nuance, a real distinction that's valid. Think about it: If I say you make your relationship with your wife-to-be, better, if I acknowledge how I've seen you do that over the last 6 months to 1 year, and you also agreed that you had made it better, am I saying what you did before was "wrong"? I mean, it might have been, but I'm not saying that...I'm just saying we can make it better. That's really important--to be open to getting better. Because if you're not open to that, and if you're sure you're already "as good as can be", or already "learned everything there is to learn", then that puts you at risk of being a real arrogant, self-righteous person who's convinced they're always right, and then does all sorts of harm to others, because they can always fake justify it as "well I know everything, I'm right". But really maybe they're just afraid to be wrong...which makes sense...because being wrong is hard. But you got to do it sometimes otherwise you won't end up being right.
I guess you took what I said as contradicting your point of view. Maybe it makes you feel better to think that people who advocated for better treatment of animals, are full of contradictions, and therefore stupid, and therefore not what you need to listen to. So when I replied with something pushing back, invalidating the critical dismissal, you weren't satisfied. I hadn't fit the "animal advocates are contradictory" model that you wanted to see. So you tried to prove that by misinterpreting what I said into some contradiction that you invented. Maybe it's more a general theme for you, that about animals specifically, you think everyone is bunk and full of contradictions, so there's no way that anyone can tell off anyone else about anything. Because everyone has to work out their own way. Well, actually, apart from suggesting that you're a teenager or early 20-something (I'm not being derisive, just has that rebellious, forge your own identity streak, but if you're older, that's really cool, you maintained that youthful mindset)--you and me very much agree with that. I guess I'm just further down the road with that than you are. When you do yourself for long enough, and come up with your own perspective, eventually you probably settle into developing a set of morals: like you go from-> everything in the world relative, and nothing has moral authority, really, (beside individual feelings, being a personal compass, if that's your take, as it was mine), to, well these things are good, and these things are bad (but it doesn't have to be b&w, it can be grey). It's really pretty natural as you get more experience, to see those patterns, and realize these things work and these other things don't. You'll probably find that condescending...but how can a claim of more experience, necessary almost by more time, be anything but condescending? So what do you expect...talking with people who put more time into something than you have so far. You can choose to emphasize how you feel it's condescending, or you can get something out of it. Or you can do both...but it might be less efficient. Good luck! :)
Utilitarian vs deontology ethics.
Most people believe that it's better for one pig to suffer than for thousands of people to die.
Even the strictest of vegans I know do not oppose animal testing in medicine if it is done to save human suffering.
He escaped justice through ineptitude, lack of political will and competing priorities, luck, and the assistance of the Nazi underground, not due to any active decision to forgive his monstrous deeds.
Whataboutism. This was about animal treatment.
It reminds me of the old saying: "they overexaggerated the aggressiveness of European wolves, they're only dangerous when hungry". Ok, so did European wolves just go to the shop to buy food when hungry?
EG:
Op -2: Awww but pigs, I like pigs
Op -1: They were happy pigs
Modern medicine would not be possible without animal trials. Lab-on-a-chips may reduce the need in the future, but animals will still be required for device testing that needs an entire structure, not just a few cells. Different people may weigh the ethical dilemma differently, but when it's your loved dying due a heart defect I am willing to bet you will still choose a treatment tested on animals.