Vegan and pro Animals in Medical Experiments

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
Post Reply
ole_92
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2015 2:02 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Vegan and pro Animals in Medical Experiments

Post by ole_92 »

EquALLity wrote:I hate that it's necessary at the moment, but from my understanding it is.
That is a very debatable assertion, but it's also practically unfalsifiable at this point. Nonhuman slavery is absolutely ubiquitous in today's world. There's hardly any area of medicine that doesn't enslave, murder, and torture nonhumans for one purpose or another (or didn't do it at some point in the past). So how would we even know if slavery is necessary if we haven't carefully and consistently examined the alternatives? In order to make more or less accurate speculations, we would have to ban animal use in medicine for some time, and determine if we still find cures for diseases etc. But at this point, the necessity of vivisection should not be taken as a fact.

A strong reason to have an inaccurate view on this, is the biased media coverage. We are more likely to hear about success stories that are linked to animal experimentation, than we are to hear about failures that happened because of animal experimentation. As an example, studies in the 60s concluded that there is a correlation between lung cancer and smoking, but failed to develop an animal model of lung cancer. That led researchers to reject the validity of the theory that smoking caused lung cancer for years. We see people praising animal research successes, but we don't hear about animal research failures. Perhaps there's a vested interest in continuing to exploit animals in medicine, just like in areas of food, clothing, and entertainment, which results in biased coverage.

A big reason for the failures is that there are many biological differences between humans and other animals, so there is always a problem extrapolating the results of animal experiments to humans. It is indisputable that the data that we get from nonhumans is less reliable than the data we would get from humans. Think about it: if we want to find cures for diseases of dogs, would we experiment on dogs or on raccoons? If we wanted to cure cats, would we experiment on cats or on mice?

So if we want to cure human diseases, why don't we experiment on humans instead? One could argue that we would need to use less humans to achieve the same result, due to an increased accuracy. Do you have any objection to using severely mentally handicapped humans in biomedical research, if that was shown to be better than using nonhuman animals?
EquALLity wrote:It makes sense because it produces more good than harm
This is also an assertion that should not be taken as a fact, a priori. Do you have the data on how many nonhuman animals are used and tortured in animal experiments (note that many of them don't even count rats and mice)? Do you have the data on how many human animals benefited from that, and in what ways? In order to make a cost-benefit analysis, we have to know those numbers, and it seems to me the situation is rather vague. So what makes you so sure that the amount of good outweighs the amount of harm?

Until those questions are answered, we shouldn't assume that animal experimentation is morally justified by default. The default that it causes enormous direct harm to animals. Unless and until it is proven to be necessary and good (taking into account interests of nonhumans as well, and not just of humans), it should be abolished and banned.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Vegan and pro Animals in Medical Experiments

Post by EquALLity »

ole_92 wrote:That is a very debatable assertion
Ok, what are the alternatives you are aware of?
It's not like I want animal testing. If there are better alternatives I'd completely embrace them.

But from my understanding, we don't have them yet.
ole_92 wrote:Nonhuman slavery is absolutely ubiquitous in today's world. There's hardly any area of medicine that doesn't enslave, murder, and torture nonhumans for one purpose or another (or didn't do it at some point in the past). So how would we even know if slavery is necessary if we haven't carefully and consistently examined the alternatives? In order to make more or less accurate speculations, we would have to ban animal use in medicine for some time, and determine if we still find cures for diseases etc. But at this point, the necessity of vivisection should not be taken as a fact.
Alternatives are currently in the making, but they aren't done. It's not like we aren't working on and haven't examined them.
ole_92 wrote:A strong reason to have an inaccurate view on this, is the biased media coverage. We are more likely to hear about success stories that are linked to animal experimentation, than we are to hear about failures that happened because of animal experimentation. As an example, studies in the 60s concluded that there is a correlation between lung cancer and smoking, but failed to develop an animal model of lung cancer. That led researchers to reject the validity of the theory that smoking caused lung cancer for years. We see people praising animal research successes, but we don't hear about animal research failures. Perhaps there's a vested interest in continuing to exploit animals in medicine, just like in areas of food, clothing, and entertainment, which results in biased coverage.
I never hear anything about animal testing in the mainstream media, so I really don't know where you're getting this from.

Perhaps it leads to failures, but we still don't have an alternative that I know of.
ole_92 wrote:A big reason for the failures is that there are many biological differences between humans and other animals, so there is always a problem extrapolating the results of animal experiments to humans. It is indisputable that the data that we get from nonhumans is less reliable than the data we would get from humans. Think about it: if we want to find cures for diseases of dogs, would we experiment on dogs or on raccoons? If we wanted to cure cats, would we experiment on cats or on mice?
I know that animal testing is far from perfect, but what's the alternative?
ole_92 wrote:So if we want to cure human diseases, why don't we experiment on humans instead? One could argue that we would need to use less humans to achieve the same result, due to an increased accuracy. Do you have any objection to using severely mentally handicapped humans in biomedical research, if that was shown to be better than using nonhuman animals?
:shock:

How are you going to do this? Are you going to take mentally challenged babies from their parents?

Advocating for things like this turns people away from veganism.
ole_92 wrote:This is also an assertion that should not be taken as a fact, a priori. Do you have the data on how many nonhuman animals are used and tortured in animal experiments (note that many of them don't even count rats and mice)? Do you have the data on how many human animals benefited from that, and in what ways? In order to make a cost-benefit analysis, we have to know those numbers, and it seems to me the situation is rather vague. So what makes you so sure that the amount of good outweighs the amount of harm?

Until those questions are answered, we shouldn't assume that animal experimentation is morally justified by default. The default that it causes enormous direct harm to animals. Unless and until it is proven to be necessary and good (taking into account interests of nonhumans as well, and not just of humans), it should be abolished and banned.
You went from the situation is rather vague to whether or not animal testing is justified to it should be abolished.
...

Based on what you have put in bold here, it sounds like you're saying that since we don't have exact numbers on the amounts of humans helped from animal testing, and that since we know it hurts animals, that it should be banned.
That's absurd. We know it saves many many human lives and relieves a ton of human suffering.

And by your own logic of us needing the numbers to make that kind of analysis, your position is wrong, because you made an analysis.
I don't have the exact numbers for the help towards humans and the harm towards animals overall, and neither do you.

However, the medicines we get through animal testing are bound to cause more good than harm, because they'll be used by hundreds of millions of people, and will be useful for many many generations.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
ole_92
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2015 2:02 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Vegan and pro Animals in Medical Experiments

Post by ole_92 »

EquALLity wrote:I know that animal testing is far from perfect, but what's the alternative?
I was criticizing your argument that conducting animal experimentation is justified, as opposed to not conducting it.
So my alternative is to abolish it, and develop medicine without exploiting anyone who doesn't volunteer. Can you show why experimenting on animals is better than not experimenting on animals, overall (not just for the humans)?
EquALLity wrote:How are you going to do this? Are you going to take mentally challenged babies from their parents?
That was a rhetorical question. I should have been more clear. I don't support experimentation with mentally challenged people either.
My point was to find out how you feel about using non-consenting humans in biomedical research, if it creates a greater net benefit than using nonhuman animals. Would you oppose it on the basis of species, or would you accept it since it is the lesser of the two evils? And there is a good reason to think that it could be better than experimenting on nonhumans - due to biological similarities and data accuracy.
One way it could be accomplished is by farming and breeding mentally challenged people, much like we farm and breed nonhumans. Again I'm not advocating for it. It's a hypothetical. Personally I think that is just as abhorrent as using nonhumans, and I reject both. But I just wanted your opinion.
EquALLity wrote:Based on what you have put in bold here, it sounds like you're saying that since we don't have exact numbers on the amounts of humans helped from animal testing, and that since we know it hurts animals, that it should be banned.
That's absurd. We know it saves many many human lives and relieves a ton of human suffering.
We also know that it costs many many nonhuman lives, and causes a ton of nonhuman suffering. So it's not like it's a win-win. There are plenty of sacrifices to be made. We have to know that the torture we're causing to other animals is balanced by the amount of human suffering that is relieved. I am very doubtful that is the case, and it seems like you can't be so sure either. How can you just assume that the sacrifice is worth it?
EquALLity wrote:And by your own logic of us needing the numbers to make that kind of analysis, your position is wrong, because you made an analysis.
I don't have the exact numbers for the help towards humans and the harm towards animals overall, and neither do you.
The burden of proof is on those who advocate for causing suffering. They have to show us that it is justified. Causing suffering doesn't justify itself (otherwise one could just run around torturing and raping kids for fun). You tried to justify it, by providing two premises for your argument: that animal experimentation (1) is necessary, (2) does more good than bad, therefore (conclusion) animal experimentation is justified.

It seems that neither premise holds under scrutiny.
1) It isn't a fact that it is necessary - in fact we can't know if it is necessary since we didn't have any meaningful period of time during which it was banned. Since we can't compare the two periods of time and the medical results obtained during those periods, we can't accurately judge whether it is necessary or not. The failure of this premise alone invalidates your whole argument.
2) But your second premise also can't be simply accepted as a fact. You don't have the numbers of nonhumans who were used (and in what ways), and humans who benefited from that (and in what ways). How can you base your argument on the idea that it results in a net good, when you don't even know if it does?

If both premises were true, the conclusion that animal experimentation is justified would be true as well (with an unstated assumption that something is morally justified if it's necessary and results in a net good, which I accepted as true for the sake of the argument). But since neither premise is true, the argument is wrong.

And since causing suffering without a valid justification is wrong, it has to be stopped. In this case, abolished and banned.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Vegan and pro Animals in Medical Experiments

Post by EquALLity »

ole_92 wrote:I was criticizing your argument that conducting animal experimentation is justified, as opposed to not conducting it.
So my alternative is to abolish it, and develop medicine without exploiting anyone who doesn't volunteer. Can you show why experimenting on animals is better than not experimenting on animals, overall (not just for the humans)?
That's not an alternative, because you're not going to get enough people to volunteer.
How many people would give up their lives for that? Like a dozen a year?
ole_92 wrote:That was a rhetorical question. I should have been more clear. I don't support experimentation with mentally challenged people either.
My point was to find out how you feel about using non-consenting humans in biomedical research, if it creates a greater net benefit than using nonhuman animals. Would you oppose it on the basis of species, or would you accept it since it is the lesser of the two evils? And there is a good reason to think that it could be better than experimenting on nonhumans - due to biological similarities and data accuracy.
One way it could be accomplished is by farming and breeding mentally challenged people, much like we farm and breed nonhumans. Again I'm not advocating for it. It's a hypothetical. Personally I think that is just as abhorrent as using nonhumans, and I reject both. But I just wanted your opinion.
How could you breed mentally challenged people?
That would also be a large expenditure of government resources. We'd have to raise them up until adulthood etc..

Also consider the negative consequences in society, and the horrible bigotry and discrimination it would cause towards the mentally challenged who weren't in those farms. Imagine how it would impact them to feel like the only reason they aren't being tortured and killed is because of their parents.
ole_92 wrote:We also know that it costs many many nonhuman lives, and causes a ton of nonhuman suffering. So it's not like it's a win-win. There are plenty of sacrifices to be made. We have to know that the torture we're causing to other animals is balanced by the amount of human suffering that is relieved. I am very doubtful that is the case, and it seems like you can't be so sure either. How can you just assume that the sacrifice is worth it?
We do know it costs many nonhuman lives and suffering, and we also know that it saves a lot of humans lives and a lot of humans from suffering.
According to you, we need exact numbers to make a cost-benefit analysis, yet you are perfectly fine saying animal testing should be abolished without those numbers.

The alternative, according to you, is to only using willing human volunteers. That's just not going to give us enough test subjects.

Hundreds of millions of people in the world have diabetes alone (animal testing resulted in treatment for it), right now (not even including all the future generations that will be helped).
A bit over a hundred million animals die from animal testing each year.

Because drugs developed from animal testing will give us drugs for many generations, it is bound to produce more good than harm.
I don't like that it's necessary at the moment, but I believe that it is.
ole_92 wrote:The burden of proof is on those who advocate for causing suffering. They have to show us that it is justified.
This can be reversed- you are advocating for human suffering by opposing animal testing (which provides drugs that alleviate human suffering).

What you're saying is irrelevant in this context. If you support or oppose animal testing, you are advocating for some suffering and some alleviation of suffering- whatever is more reasonable to believe alleviates more suffering (supporting animal testing in medicine, generally) is the best option.
ole_92 wrote:Causing suffering doesn't justify itself (otherwise one could just run around torturing and raping kids for fun).
I'm not sure what you mean here... what?
ole_92 wrote:1) It isn't a fact that it is necessary - in fact we can't know if it is necessary since we didn't have any meaningful period of time during which it was banned. Since we can't compare the two periods of time and the medical results obtained during those periods, we can't accurately judge whether it is necessary or not. The failure of this premise alone invalidates your whole argument.
What do you mean, we don't have a period of time in modern history was banned, therefore we can't determine whether or not it's overall good (what I mean by necessary)?

We don't have to ban it to know what would happen. We don't have an alternative, so our medical progress would be stifled, and millions of people would suffer and die. It's not like an alternative would magically spring up upon banning animal testing.
I just don't understand what your point is.
ole_92 wrote:2) But your second premise also can't be simply accepted as a fact. You don't have the numbers of nonhumans who were used (and in what ways), and humans who benefited from that (and in what ways). How can you base your argument on the idea that it results in a net good, when you don't even know if it does?
Over 100 million animals are used per year (presumably a small amount over), and we know that humans benefit from the medical advancements that result. I don't have all the numbers, but diabetes alone shows how much animal testing can help the world.

It creates antibiotics, helps cancer research, led to the development of blood transfusion, creates vaccines, has helped with surgeries, and will save many many more as the generations go on.
After the medical advancements are developed, the animal testing stops, but the people who need the drug still increases. It's bound to save more people than animals killed.

Again, though, even if we didn't know if animal testing produced more good than harm, all you can say is that you don't have a position.
Being against it is taking the position that animal testing produces more harm than good, which, in this case (the case you seem to think this is, though I disagree) would be unsubstantiated.
ole_92 wrote:And since causing suffering without a valid justification is wrong, it has to be stopped. In this case, abolished and banned.
Again, this can be reversed.

You can't say that it's somehow not advocating for human suffering to oppose animal testing just because we wouldn't be causing the human suffering. Suffering is suffering, regardless of the cause of infliction.

If we had no clue if animal testing produced more harm than good, it would be unreasonable to say it should be abolished or to say it should continue.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Vegan and pro Animals in Medical Experiments

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity: Make sure to fact-check these claims made against animal experimentation. Most of them are simply untrue.

The best argument against animal experimentation is that the technology in development (like organs on chips) is going to be superior, so we should devote money into alternatives first (slowly research for a short time) and then we will have better models and can catch up on the research and surpass it in a much shorter time. This will be better for human beings in the long run.

We also need to have better standards to prevent unnecessary use of animals.

Unfortunately, this is not the argument that AR-proponents make, so as a result they look like deontological lunatics and it harms veganism by giving the appearance that vegans favor nonhuman animals over human beings. A few comments in this thread are disturbingly misanthropic.

The arguments about testing on mentally disabled humans is a very ignorant one:
They, like pets, belong to the caretakers. It would not be practical to get a sufficient supply without breeding them, and humans grow and reproduce too slowly. Mice are better subjects, because they can be experimented upon in larger numbers (being smaller, reproducing faster and having shorter lifespans). It's the same reason that elephants do not make good animals for experimentation.

Experimentation in inmates is another matter, though:
We have ample population to experiment on, and that would arguably be very useful. It would not completely replace non-human animal models, because we also need to do studies on lifespan, and those on cancer in genetically predisposed individuals, but it could compliment them very well and partially replace animal models.

Experimentation on inmates is probably not legally practical, though, due to prohibitions on "cruel and unusual punishment". Although people are not very sympathetic to rapists and murderers, we have to focus on what can actually be done.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Vegan and pro Animals in Medical Experiments

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:The best argument against animal experimentation is that the technology in development (like organs on chips) is going to be superior, so we should devote money into alternatives first (slowly research for a short time) and then we will have better models and can catch up on the research and surpass it in a much shorter time. This will be better for human beings in the long run.
So you think we should halt animal testing, and only fund research on developing the alternatives?
brimstoneSalad wrote:We also need to have better standards to prevent unnecessary use of animals.
Do you have any examples?
brimstoneSalad wrote:The arguments about testing on mentally disabled humans is a very ignorant one:
They, like pets, belong to the caretakers. It would not be practical to get a sufficient supply without breeding them, and humans grow and reproduce too slowly. Mice are better subjects, because they can be experimented upon in larger numbers (being smaller, reproducing faster and having shorter lifespans). It's the same reason that elephants do not make good animals for experimentation.
That's a good point.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Experimentation in inmates is another matter, though:
We have ample population to experiment on, and that would arguably be very useful. It would not completely replace non-human animal models, because we also need to do studies on lifespan, and those on cancer in genetically predisposed individuals, but it could compliment them very well and partially replace animal models.

Experimentation on inmates is probably not legally practical, though, due to prohibitions on "cruel and unusual punishment". Although people are not very sympathetic to rapists and murderers, we have to focus on what can actually be done.
Well, that would certainly be cruel punishment.

I don't think doing it on inmates would be ok anyway, though. They're much more sentient than the animals we are talking about.
With mentally challenged people, they're arguably in some cases as sentient as the animals. That's not the case for the people in prison.

Why is it ok to torture them just because they did bad things? How does that justify it?
How is it any better than torturing innocent people? I don't think it'd give more incentive for people to follow the law (do you disagree?), and if they're just as sentient as other people (which they are, obviously), how is it any better?

Also, we note that we have many instances of people being executed even though they were innocent. We'd have many instances of innocent people being tortured as well.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Vegan and pro Animals in Medical Experiments

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote:So you think we should halt animal testing, and only fund research on developing the alternatives?
That's not realistic, though.
I'm only interested in funding research on developing alternatives. I think that's where vegans should be putting their contributions (actually, vegans should put money into campaigns against animal agriculture and supporting in vitro meat, because experimentation is trivial by comparison in terms of harm).
EquALLity wrote: Do you have any examples?
Education is a great example; like the use of dead animals in schools.

Also, things like testing GMOs, which is entirely on the heads of the evil anti-GMO lobby for making the government require those tests when there's no reason to, since GMO is safer than conventional methods.
Also bad science like testing of artificial sweeteners that have already been proved safe, like those evil people who did the seralini rat study. Monsters.

EquALLity wrote: Why is it ok to torture them just because they did bad things? How does that justify it?
The results of the tests helping more people than the harm done justifies it consequentially. Also, they have broken the social contract, so they have to repay society: in consequential terms, it doesn't have the drawbacks of grabbing random people off the street (which is much more harmful).

That it's more acceptable to people makes it conceivable and justifies it more to people who are concerned with punishment for justice's sake.
EquALLity wrote:How is it any better than torturing innocent people?
Like I said above, you can't grab random people off the street; the consequences of that in terms of social order would be very bad.
EquALLity wrote:I don't think it'd give more incentive for people to follow the law (do you disagree?), and if they're just as sentient as other people (which they are, obviously), how is it any better?
As above, it's better because it doesn't damage social order. It's justified by the greater good outcome.

Grabbing random people off the street might get good experimental results too, but it would be socially unacceptable and have much more serious repercussions.

I would argue that due to much lower IQ, inmates probably are less sentient. Many are borderline retarded. But there's not a huge gap in sentience. It has more to do with the social contract, and not violating social order.
EquALLity wrote:Also, we note that we have many instances of people being executed even though they were innocent. We'd have many instances of innocent people being tortured as well.
Sure. But everything has a hit to miss ratio. Nothing is perfect. We have to look at the overall consequences.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Vegan and pro Animals in Medical Experiments

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:That's not realistic, though.
I'm only interested in funding research on developing alternatives. I think that's where vegans should be putting their contributions (actually, vegans should put money into campaigns against animal agriculture and supporting in vitro meat, because experimentation is trivial by comparison in terms of harm).
I was asking if you support it.

So, ideally, you think we should halt animal testing and pour all the money into alternatives?
brimstoneSalad wrote:Education is a great example; like the use of dead animals in schools.
So use dead animals instead of live ones in animal testing? That works?
brimstoneSalad wrote:The results of the tests helping more people than the harm done justifies it consequentially. Also, they have broken the social contract, so they have to repay society: in consequential terms, it doesn't have the drawbacks of grabbing random people off the street (which is much more harmful).

That it's more acceptable to people makes it conceivable and justifies it more to people who are concerned with punishment for justice's sake.
Are you saying that it's not actually any worse than killing innocent people in and of itself, and killing/torturing innocent people for testing is just wrong because of the chaos that would invoke on society?

I don't see why them breaking the 'social contract' matters- unless you're referring to how using inmates would be better for public perception if we could do it (which we can't anyway).
brimstoneSalad wrote:I would argue that due to much lower IQ, inmates probably are less sentient. Many are borderline retarded. But there's not a huge gap in sentience. It has more to do with the social contract, and not violating social order.
It depends on the inmate. Are you going to have them take IQ tests to determine if they get experimented on or not?
Talk about test stress. :P
brimstoneSalad wrote:Sure. But everything has a hit to miss ratio. Nothing is perfect. We have to look at the overall consequences.
Yeah, I know. But if this were to be implemented, I think we'd be morally obligated to repair our criminal justice system.
Not that we aren't now already.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Vegan and pro Animals in Medical Experiments

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: So, ideally, you think we should halt animal testing and pour all the money into alternatives?
Sure, it's best practice. If you don't have the right tool for the job, the first thing you do is make the tool so you can do the job more effectively thereafter, not bumble along with a blunt instrument.

I don't think it's useful to campaign against medical experiments that are done on animals, though, because the alternative use of that money was not necessarily to research alternatives.
EquALLity wrote: So use dead animals instead of live ones in animal testing? That works?
No, I mean like the squids, frogs, etc. preserved in formaldehyde students work on (that have been bred and killed to use in classrooms). They also work on live animals, which is unnecessary too.
EquALLity wrote: Are you saying that it's not actually any worse than killing innocent people in and of itself, and killing/torturing innocent people for testing is just wrong because of the chaos that would invoke on society?
It's worse because of the chaos. Also, because innocent people have more positive moral value. Inmates are expensive.
EquALLity wrote: Yeah, I know. But if this were to be implemented, I think we'd be morally obligated to repair our criminal justice system.
Not that we aren't now already.
I think we already are.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Vegan and pro Animals in Medical Experiments

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't think it's useful to campaign against medical experiments that are done on animals, though, because the alternative use of that money was not necessarily to research alternatives.
What does it go towards, then?
brimstoneSalad wrote:No, I mean like the squids, frogs, etc. preserved in formaldehyde students work on (that have been bred and killed to use in classrooms). They also work on live animals, which is unnecessary too.
So breed and kill the animals for testing? How is that better? And don't we already do that, in many cases?
brimstoneSalad wrote:Also, because innocent people have more positive moral value. Inmates are expensive.
Why do you think it's any more ethical to kill a bad person than it is to kill a good person, in and of itself?
If they are of same sentience, the consequences are the same.
brimstoneSalad wrote:I think we already are.
You think we're already fixing it, or we already have the obligation to?
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
Post Reply