Philosophical Vegan Forum

I had a debate today with a Vegan friend and non vegan friend and I'm containing my vegan journey .

I am vegan i became vegan for ethical reasons -- BUT , i support Medical Experiments i don't support animal testing fashion or beauty industry. anyone feel the same?

I think I agree.
It's terrible that we have to do animal testing for medical advancements at this time, but those medical advancements will ultimately produce more good than the harm done from the death and torture of the animals.

There are other forms of testing, but they aren't able to replace animal testing yet.
Alternatives are in the making, though!

Of course, there's no justification for doing animal experimentation for cosmetics.

EquALLity wrote:I think I agree.
It's terrible that we have to do animal testing for medical advancements at this time, but those medical advancements will ultimately produce more good than the harm done from the death and torture of the animals.

There are other forms of testing, but they aren't able to replace animal testing yet.
Alternatives are in the making, though!

Of course, there's no justification for doing animal experimentation for cosmetics.

glad to know i was beginning to feel the cognitive dissonance

Yes same here. This sums it up well

https://neurdiness.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/currently-necessary-evil-a-vegans-view-on-the-use-of-animals-in-neuroscience-research/

garrethdsouza wrote:Yes same here. This sums it up well

https://neurdiness.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... -research/

Oh you write that its good -- thats how i feel . i wonder if the Vegan A would do a vid on this subject?

Accepting animal testing for legitimate medical reasons as a necessary evil is a pretty common position in consequential veganism (as opposed to deontologicla veganism).

The tricky thing is separating the necessary from the not, and the excessive testing which is not scientifically very useful but may be required by government (like lot testing), or a defense against liability. We really need reform in those areas.

In terms of medical testing on animals, we just need to devote more to alternatives so they aren't needed anymore. Cells and organs on chips are very promising.

No, I think that use of nonhuman animals for experimentation (even if it saves lives of humans) is not morally justified. I believe it is inconsistent with veganism.

I'm not in favor of severely mentally disabled humans to be used for experiments and vivisection. Nonhumans are sentient, and so are disabled humans; they can all suffer. They're also not unlikely to be just as intelligent. I do not want to live in a society where disabled people are exploited like that.

In fact, I would argue that we have stronger, not weaker, moral obligations towards the most vulnerable members of our society, such as children, the elderly, and the disabled. So the only way I could support animal experiments, and oppose mentally disabled human experiments at the same time, is if I was a speciesist.

If testing is necessary evil, then it should be done to the mentally disabled humans first, since they are much better test subjects. I guess we would pick them out randomly, just like we (they) do to other animals today.

I don't assume that it is always a good thing to help humans at all, since the consequenses are worse when more humans live longer. Perhaps it would be worth it if it improves life quality, but not extending life. I guess it is hard to separate the two though, since better health often leads to better quality of life.

EquALLity wrote: those medical advancements will ultimately produce more good than the harm done from the death and torture of the animals.

Good for whom? Certainly not the animals.

I really object to the notion that the ends justify the means when we're talking about the hellish torture animals are put through in medical experiments.

If we're going to have any reasonable form of consequentialism it has to come with some caveat on the extent of evil we're willing to enact for what consequences.

The idea that we should enact the greatest evil on the most defenseless for our own benefit makes no sense to me. Not to mention that creatures willing to enact such tremendous evil on others aren't even deserving of the extra years added onto their lives through those medical experiments.

Anon0045 wrote: I don't assume that it is always a good thing to help humans at all, since the consequenses are worse when more humans live longer.

True true my man

Heinechan wrote:

EquALLity wrote: those medical advancements will ultimately produce more good than the harm done from the death and torture of the animals.

Good for whom? Certainly not the animals.

I really object to the notion that the ends justify the means when we're talking about the hellish torture animals are put through in medical experiments.

If we're going to have any reasonable form of consequentialism it has to come with some caveat on the extent of evil we're willing to enact for what consequences.

The idea that we should enact the greatest evil on the most defenseless for our own benefit makes no sense to me. Not to mention that creatures willing to enact such tremendous evil on others aren't even deserving of the extra years added onto their lives through those medical experiments.

Anon0045 wrote: I don't assume that it is always a good thing to help humans at all, since the consequenses are worse when more humans live longer.

True true my man

I hate that it's necessary at the moment, but from my understanding it is. Animal testing leads to medical progress that saves many many lives.
In the end, it produces more harm than good in many instances.

It makes sense because it produces more good than harm, even though it involves a lot of horrible torture.
It's a choice between two evils, and the lesser of two evils is animal testing.

I don't understand your argument about humans not being 'deserving' of the medical advancements we get from animal testing.
In the end it's just about what produces the most good.