Vegan and pro Animals in Medical Experiments

[brimstoneSalad]

I think the amount of interest in living is what matters, not how many other interests have been violated.

No, the total number of interests violated by the action matter, minus those interests which are already violated by default by unrelated actions (e.g. being imprisoned means you can't be with your family, have kids, sex with women, etc.).

Killing somebody with nothing to live for (or less to live for) is less wrong, since there are fewer other interests violated in the act of killing that haven't already been violated by something else (of course, that something else was wrong too, but unrelated to this question).

Maybe, now that being caged, the bad dog has gained perspective and values life much more.

We see the opposite. Suffering is demoralizing, beyond a certain point, and loss of connectivity to what they value in life can make inmates suicidal (make them want to die).
The issue is particularly pronounced on death row: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_p ... _execution

But, if we're just talking about killing a bad dog vs killing a good dog, with equal interest in living and amount of sentience, and the bad dog is guaranteed not to bite anyone, do you think it's more ethical to kill the bad one?

Again, it depends on the costs of the measures that prevent biting. Is the bad dog now less productive toward doing good in the world than the good dog?
Assuming the measures don't negatively affect the bad dog's quality of life by comparison, and both bad and good dog are isolated from the outside world and unable to do any further harm or good, and both want equally to live, and there are no aspects of outside emotion (like loved ones, or victims wanting justice), or anything resembling deterrence, and costs are the same, etc.
Then of course it's the same.
But this situation does not remotely resemble reality.

And legalizing can involve government taxation, while decriminalizing doesn't.
So how would decriminalizing solve the problem of drug cartels?

Decriminalization can involve fines, which are revenue sources.
Like legalization, it kills the cartels by crashing the price and discouraging criminal activity related to the drug trade.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Everyone engages in immoral behavior

That's not an excuse to engage in immoral behavior often.

but are most people more bad than good?

I wouldn't go so far as to define most people as bad because I think it is likely that most of them are just ignorant. However, I think most people do a lot of bad things very often. For example, consider the popularity of meat eating in the first world or the popularity of organic and non-GMO crops.

I'm not sure it's true, though, so I don't think it can be used as an argument for animal testing.

I think you mean an argument against animal testing, right?
If so: Why?
If not: How is this an argument for animal testing?

Also, it makes veganism look insane.

Good point. I don't really think its worth the effort at this point considering that many treatments for diet induced illnesses already exist and that new alternatives for animal testing are on the horizon. If we tried now, we'd be promoting an anti-medicine (and by extension anti-science) position which would seem inconsistent with our otherwise rational and scientific values.

[Jaywalker]

I don't know about this... Do you think most people are bad people?

Of course, I think good people are extremely rare. I wouldn't use this as an argument, but it's still one of the reasons I oppose animal testing. I have no problem with lying by omission and using videos to appeal to their emotion.

I don't see why this is relevant if the end result of the testing causes less suffering than no testing.

It matters when there may be a better way to reach that end result. People choosing better lifestyles would decrease illnesses, which would make animal testing less justified. They don't choose to do that. It would be more accurate to say I oppose unhealthy lifestyles in this regard, because it's a choice that creates additional justification for animal testing.

Not necessarily, for medical testing.

What do you mean? I'm talking about redundant, pointless animal testing, things like this: http://www.peta.org/blog/tax-dollars-th ... periments/

Do you actually have evidence that'll happen?

I infer it from how humans interact. It's been happening with cosmetic testing.

The benefits of past research are extremely important in that they show us what medical advancements from animal testing can do for humanity.

Sure, that goes without saying, we know it works. I meant past benefits by themselves do not justify current practices, like when it comes to eating meat, slavery, wars, etc.

[Jaywalker]

Good point. I don't really think its worth the effort at this point considering that many treatments for diet induced illnesses already exist and that new alternatives for animal testing are on the horizon. If we tried now, we'd be promoting an anti-medicine (and by extension anti-science) position which would seem inconsistent with our otherwise rational and scientific values.

What about smoking and drinking?

Why do you think it would be an anti-medicine position? Many people and organisations already oppose animal-testing, and they do it in conjunction with supporting alternative methods. They don't oppose medicine, they think money should be spent on other methods.

Do you think the effort spent on opposing it is better spent elsewhere? I think it can be a high-profile topic that can act as a gateway to other animal rights notions. I think it has emotional, persuasive power.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

What about smoking and drinking?

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Why do you think it would be an anti-medicine position?

Because many (animal tested) treatments for illnesses that can be solved with dietary changes already exist. Trying to stop animal testing now would not induce dietary changes to treat these illnesses, even if it helps animal test subjects. In order to get people to make dietary changes to treat their illnesses we would have to get them to stop taking the medicine that already exists to treat it.

Many people and organisations already oppose animal-testing, and they do it in conjunction with supporting alternative methods.

This is off-topic, but what are the alternative methods? How effective are they?

They don't oppose medicine, they think money should be spent on other methods.

Right, but if we wanted to try to make carnists make dietary changes to treat their illnesses, we would have to oppose medicine. Just being anti-animal testing doesn't require an anti-medicine position, as you have demonstrated.

Do you think the effort spent on opposing it is better spent elsewhere?

I think trying to stop / reduce factory farming takes priority over animal testing because the former is likely a greater source of suffering (I haven't checked the numbers, correct me if I'm wrong) and is one of the primary causes of environmental catastrophe. The effort is probably better spent leafleting for vegetarianism.

I think it can be a high-profile topic that can act as a gateway to other animal rights notions. I think it has emotional, persuasive power.

I'm not sure about it serving as a gateway. Avoiding animal tested products, at least for me, has always been a hassle, especially when you're trying to avoid products that are homeopathic natural bullshit. I think if animal testing was used as the first ethical step, people would be turned away by the inconvenience of shopping and ineffectiveness of products if they get stuck with the homeopathic shit.

[Jaywalker]

I don't understand what you mean by this.

I meant we should consider the diseases caused by those substances in any comparison of diets and lifestyles. Those are among the leading causes of death and they are preventable.

Because many (animal tested) treatments for illnesses that can be solved with dietary changes already exist. Trying to stop animal testing now would not induce dietary changes to treat these illnesses, even if it helps animal test subjects. In order to get people to make dietary changes to treat their illnesses we would have to get them to stop taking the medicine that already exists to treat it.

I'm now unsure what your first post was referring to. Are you talking about taking away medicine? I'm not in favor of taking away medicine, it can't be done anyway. But I'm in favor of taking away animal testing for new medicine even if it means more humans die earlier (not necessarily a bad thing at this time, in my opinion). Doctors already suggest dietary and lifestyle changes for illnesses that can't be outright cured with medicine, like cancer, heart disease, etc. They only follow those suggestions after they've fallen ill, and sometimes not even then. They have a choice - lead better lives, or make others suffer in search of a cure. Better lifestyles won't eliminate all diseases, but it's a very significant difference.

Basically, I don't think the harm they inflict upon themselves is a true justification for animal testing.

This is off-topic, but what are the alternative methods? How effective are they?

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used ... l-testing/

I think in vitro testing has the most potential. They say it can't entirely replace animal testing, but can remove the need for the majority of it.

Right, but if we wanted to try to make carnists make dietary changes to treat their illnesses, we would have to oppose medicine. Just being anti-animal testing doesn't require an anti-medicine position, as you have demonstrated.

Why? We can explain they need to change their lifestyle habits if they want to live longer and better (as we already do), and if they want medicinal treatments too, here's a pretty good alternative method for us to find potential new ones.

I think trying to stop / reduce factory farming takes priority over animal testing because the former is likely a greater source of suffering (I haven't checked the numbers, correct me if I'm wrong) and is one of the primary causes of environmental catastrophe. The effort is probably better spent leafleting for vegetarianism.

Ok, but should every vegan stop worrying about animal testing, or things like circuses, trophy hunting, etc? There is likely a point of diminishing returns on manpower invested in leafleting against factory farming. I'm of the opinion that approaching animal rights from various angles produces the best result by creating more cognitive dissonance. People have a harder time ignoring these issues when they're all around them, and they're all interconnected. I think at least some manpower is better invested in various less significant issues, and some of them can be championed concurrently. They're all ammunition.

[EquALLity]

That's not an excuse to engage in immoral behavior often.

Of course not.

I wouldn't go so far as to define most people as bad because I think it is likely that most of them are just ignorant. However, I think most people do a lot of bad things very often. For example, consider the popularity of meat eating in the first world or the popularity of organic and non-GMO crops.

I agree, but, do you think that most peoples' actions produce more bad than good overall? That's the central question here.

I think you mean an argument against animal testing, right?
If so: Why?
If not: How is this an argument for animal testing?

Against, yeah.

Like I said, I don't think it can be used as an argument against animal testing, because I'm not sure it's true.

[EquALLity]

Of course, I think good people are extremely rare. I wouldn't use this as an argument, but it's still one of the reasons I oppose animal testing. I have no problem with lying by omission and using videos to appeal to their emotion.

That's not going to work. You can't win this in the long run by mere appeals to emotion.

It matters when there may be a better way to reach that end result. People choosing better lifestyles would decrease illnesses, which would make animal testing less justified. They don't choose to do that. It would be more accurate to say I oppose unhealthy lifestyles in this regard, because it's a choice that creates additional justification for animal testing.

Why does that matter?

I don't see logic in basing our actions on an ideal world. That's not the situation we're dealing with.
Bottom line, if animal testing produces less suffering than no animal testing, it's moral by definition.

What do you mean? I'm talking about redundant, pointless animal testing, things like this: http://www.peta.org/blog/tax-dollars-th ... periments/

Well, of course not every single animal test for science is right. But you're saying that, because of that, we should throw ALL testing out the window.

I infer it from how humans interact. It's been happening with cosmetic testing.

That's different, because cosmetic testing is completely and obviously unjustifiable.

Even if you were right though, it sends a 'strong message' to threaten to murder the President that we are unsatisfied with government.
It's still not a good idea.

Sure, that goes without saying, we know it works. I meant past benefits by themselves do not justify current practices, like when it comes to eating meat, slavery, wars, etc.

They do when the situation hasn't changed.

Meat used to be necessary for survival, but it isn't anymore.
Animal testing used to be necessary for medical advancements, and it still is.

[EquALLity]

No, the total number of interests violated by the action matter, minus those interests which are already violated by default by unrelated actions (e.g. being imprisoned means you can't be with your family, have kids, sex with women, etc.).

Killing somebody with nothing to live for (or less to live for) is less wrong, since there are fewer other interests violated in the act of killing that haven't already been violated by something else (of course, that something else was wrong too, but unrelated to this question).

I see what you're saying.

Instinctively, I'd think, "But free people already get to have a lot of interests fulfilled. Shouldn't prisoners at least get their lives, given they are denied those other things?"

But, it's true that you'd be denying more interests to the free people by killing them than the prisoners, because the prisoners already don't get those interests. So I guess it'd cause less harm to kill the prisoners.

We see the opposite. Suffering is demoralizing, beyond a certain point, and loss of connectivity to what they value in life can make inmates suicidal (make them want to die).
The issue is particularly pronounced on death row: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_p ... _execution

I never said it's common; I'm just saying you can't generalize and assume they all appreciate life less.

Decriminalization can involve fines, which are revenue sources.
Like legalization, it kills the cartels by crashing the price and discouraging criminal activity related to the drug trade.

The way legalizing hurts drug cartels, I'm assuming, is that marijuana can be sold cheaply in stores legally, plus people know they won't get in trouble getting marijuana legally, so they'll just buy from stores instead of from cartels.

How does decriminalizing crash the price and discourage criminal activity?

[brimstoneSalad]

I see what you're saying.

Instinctively, I'd think, "But free people already get to have a lot of interests fulfilled. Shouldn't prisoners at least get their lives, given they are denied those other things?"

But, it's true that you'd be denying more interests to the free people by killing them than the prisoners, because the prisoners already don't get those interests. So I guess it'd cause less harm to kill the prisoners.

Right, this is a case where intuition can lead you wrong.

We saw the same thing in the thread ole started, where he promoted negative utilitarianism. It seems more fair, sure, but it isn't sound reasoning, and fairness in itself does not mean right.

I never said it's common; I'm just saying you can't generalize and assume they all appreciate life less.

Sure, there may be exceptions, but what matters is not the exceptions: it's the average that matters.

The way legalizing hurts drug cartels, I'm assuming, is that marijuana can be sold cheaply in stores legally, plus people know they won't get in trouble getting marijuana legally, so they'll just buy from stores instead of from cartels.

How does decriminalizing crash the price and discourage criminal activity?

The same way.
People sell it more cheaply, because if you get caught, instead of going to jail it's more like a parking ticket.
So the drugs aren't taxed, but every now and then you get caught and pay a fine, and you keep doing it. The fine becomes a price of doing business (like a tax, but a little less consistent).
Violence is eliminated and the drug price falls, and revenue is generated from fines instead of taxes.

The difference is it's not sold on the store shelves: You have to ask for it. The technical illegality (and imposition of a fine when you get caught) pushes it out of visibility and makes it harder for people to get into.

Imagine if, in order to buy cigarettes, you couldn't just look in a display case, but you had to ask somebody for them, and they'd say no unless they already knew you weren't a cop. It creates a barrier to entry in order to start doing drugs. Somebody who hasn't done drugs before is going to need references from a friend to even connect with a dealer, because the dealer doesn't want to be caught and fined by doing it too openly. The difference in penalty means he's not going to kill you to avoid being caught, but he doesn't want to lose $500 or whatever either, so he'll still be careful to keep it out of sight.