Vegan and pro Animals in Medical Experiments

[EquALLity]

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

The average prisoner on death row wants to die?

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.

I see what you're saying for the most part, but why do drugs become cheaper when decriminalized?
When legalized, I'd think they'd become cheaper because of business competition.

And how do we know if a drug is from a cartel or not, if it's not legal and in stores openly?

[brimstoneSalad]

The average prisoner on death row wants to die?

Didn't say they want to die. The average prisoner is less optimistic and invested in life than the average free person. Their motivation to live is going to tend to be less on average. Some will want to die, some will be indifferent, the rare exception will be as optimistic and inspired to live as somebody who is free, but on average it is less of a violation to kill them because their wills to live will be less compared to somebody who is free.

I see what you're saying for the most part, but why do drugs become cheaper when decriminalized?
When legalized, I'd think they'd become cheaper because of business competition.

And how do we know if a drug is from a cartel or not, if it's not legal and in stores openly?

To cut out the cartels, production just needs to be decriminalized to reduce local cost.

"Hey you farmer Brown, you're growing opium! Bad farmer, $100 fine for you per day until you stop!"

Production just needs to be cheaper locally than the cost of smuggling. The same goes for Meth, and other drugs.

[Jaywalker]

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

That was just an example. It's a single tool in an arsenal.

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.

They're choosing to harm others when they have other options. Hell, so am I to a lesser extent. I want to make us unable to do that.

I don't understand your first sentence. I want to become good and I'm trying to change my actions in pursuit of an ideal world. Some actions are better than others in lessening suffering, and I'd rather take those actions. If I hold people hostage and threaten to blow them up if I'm not given money, sometimes it's better to take me out with a sniper instead, or use another way that's more preferable than giving me money.

As I said, I don't think animal testing actually produces less suffering than no animal testing. Even if you can convince me that it does, you don't rule out another way being better in the long run.

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.

No no, not just because of that. It factors into our evaluation though, it must be pointed out.

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

There are reasons for doing it. People want to buy cosmetics because it makes them happier. Companies want to develop and market new cosmetics because they earn money. If we're talking about justification in a simple yes/no sense, I think medical testing is completely unjustifiable too.

That's a side point though. My point was that people's demand for non-animal testing has aided in shifting cosmetic testing practices, since you asked if I had evidence.

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.

Well, not all messages are comparable like that. Opposing animal testing is much better received than threatening to murder someone.

I don't advocate opposing it without supporting alternatives either, that would be useless. In practice, alternative methods can be marketed as more cost-efficient and capable of providing a cure for the big diseases. I support organisations that do that. I believe the public consciousness is positively affected by those campaigns as well, thereby indirectly helping in other areas such as factory farming.

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.

Past benefits are evidence for the potential of animal testing, yes, but they themselves are not justifications is what I'm saying. I'd added that point because I saw something along the lines of "animal testing gave us so and so" in this thread, reminding me of arguments like "eating meat made us smarter".

The situation has changed. The benefits already gained will not be gained again in the future, they're preserved as knowledge. There are alternative methods with the potential to replace animal testing, already capable of doing so in some areas. If meat was still necessary for survival, we would be obligated to develop alternatives if possible, the same with animal testing.

If you can show me it's better to just drop this issue and focus solely on factory farming, I'm willing to support that. However, even if that's true, I will still oppose animal testing, just not in practice. It's something people will have to tackle eventually.

[EquALLity]

Didn't say they want to die. The average prisoner is less optimistic and invested in life than the average free person. Their motivation to live is going to tend to be less on average. Some will want to die, some will be indifferent, the rare exception will be as optimistic and inspired to live as somebody who is free, but on average it is less of a violation to kill them because their wills to live will be less compared to somebody who is free.

Ah, I see.

I don't think that justifies assuming they are less invested in life, though. Maybe they should fill out a questionnaire, or something.

To cut out the cartels, production just needs to be decriminalized to reduce local cost.

"Hey you farmer Brown, you're growing opium! Bad farmer, $100 fine for you per day until you stop!"

Production just needs to be cheaper locally than the cost of smuggling. The same goes for Meth, and other drugs.

Ah, ok, that makes sense.

I think we should legalize marijuana and that hard drugs should be decriminalized, then.

[EquALLity]

That was just an example. It's a single tool in an arsenal.

If the other arguments don't hold up to reason, as I currently believe, it still won't work in the long run.

They're choosing to harm others when they have other options. Hell, so am I to a lesser extent. I want to make us unable to do that.

I don't understand your first sentence. I want to become good and I'm trying to change my actions in pursuit of an ideal world. Some actions are better than others in lessening suffering, and I'd rather take those actions. If I hold people hostage and threaten to blow them up if I'm not given money, sometimes it's better to take me out with a sniper instead, or use another way that's more preferable than giving me money.

As I said, I don't think animal testing actually produces less suffering than no animal testing. Even if you can convince me that it does, you don't rule out another way being better in the long run.

They are wrong in choosing to harm others when they have alternative options, but I don't see why this is relevant.

My point in that first sentence is, just because people should do something, doesn't mean that should be factored into this analysis.

It doesn't matter if people should be healthier to reduce the need for animal testing when that's not the situation at play.
Whether or not people are wrong in becoming sick, if the consequences of animal testing produce more net good than the consequences of ending the testing, it's moral.

Here's a situation with similar:
A person crashes a boat on a deserted island with only his dog. It was the man's fault they crashed, not the dog's.
However, the man eating the dog would produce more good than the dog eating him (because the man is more sentient), so it's morally acceptable for the man to eat his dog.

Animal testing does produce more harm than good. It's given us many important medical advancements, and is in the process of making more now (ie a cure for cancer).

No no, not just because of that. It factors into our evaluation though, it must be pointed out.

I don't think it factors in our evaluation in a significant way.

I think we should, instead of flushing animal testing down the toilet, regulate it more so that tests like that don't happen.

There are reasons for doing it. People want to buy cosmetics because it makes them happier. Companies want to develop and market new cosmetics because they earn money. If we're talking about justification in a simple yes/no sense, I think medical testing is completely unjustifiable too.

That's a side point though. My point was that people's demand for non-animal testing has aided in shifting cosmetic testing practices, since you asked if I had evidence.

There are reasons people eat meat- it makes them happy, and companies benefit financially. These are not justifiable reasons, like to save your life because you got stranded on an island with a chicken is.
It's the same with animal testing, and my point is that the reason why cosmetic testing has gone down due to protest is because it's actually unjustifiable (unlike for medicine).

Well, not all messages are comparable like that. Opposing animal testing is much better received than threatening to murder someone.

I don't advocate opposing it without supporting alternatives either, that would be useless. In practice, alternative methods can be marketed as more cost-efficient and capable of providing a cure for the big diseases. I support organisations that do that. I believe the public consciousness is positively affected by those campaigns as well, thereby indirectly helping in other areas such as factory farming.

My point is that 'sending a strong message' isn't necessarily relevant.

Note that we don't even have alternatives, yet.

Past benefits are evidence for the potential of animal testing, yes, but they themselves are not justifications is what I'm saying. I'd added that point because I saw something along the lines of "animal testing gave us so and so" in this thread, reminding me of arguments like "eating meat made us smarter".

The situation has changed. The benefits already gained will not be gained again in the future, they're preserved as knowledge. There are alternative methods with the potential to replace animal testing, already capable of doing so in some areas. If meat was still necessary for survival, we would be obligated to develop alternatives if possible, the same with animal testing.

Ah, I see what you're saying.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't think that justifies assuming they are less invested in life, though. Maybe they should fill out a questionnaire, or something.

I don't trust self reporting much if it can be avoided, since it's hard to establish a baseline. Behavior is a better indication; reckless or suicidal behavior, for example.

I think we should legalize marijuana and that hard drugs should be decriminalized, then.

I think we should legalize medical marijuana. Then gradually illegalize (the same as other drugs, but not criminalize) alcohol and cigarettes -- along with sugary sodas and whatever else is an uncontroversial social ill. Legalizing recreational marijuana seems to be moving in the wrong direction, since it is still a social ill. It just happens that criminalizing it is much worse.

[EquALLity]

I don't trust self reporting much if it can be avoided, since it's hard to establish a baseline. Behavior is a better indication; reckless or suicidal behavior, for example.

What do you mean? Why don't you trust self-reporting?

I think we should legalize medical marijuana. Then gradually illegalize (the same as other drugs, but not criminalize) alcohol and cigarettes -- along with sugary sodas and whatever else is an uncontroversial social ill. Legalizing recreational marijuana seems to be moving in the wrong direction, since it is still a social ill. It just happens that criminalizing it is much worse.

Why?

I think people should be able to whatever they want with their own bodies.

What do you mean by a 'social ill'?

[brimstoneSalad]

What do you mean? Why don't you trust self-reporting?

It's very difficult for people to answer objectively subjective questions about life satisfaction and happiness.

How happy are you, on a scale of one to ten? What's ten? Do you even have a concept of it? Maybe you're actually 5 but you think you're ten, then you fall in love and decide you're ten now and you were five before, then you have a family and decide NOW you're ten, before you were a seven at best and when you were single you were miserable and didn't know it. Or any number of other cliches. Self reporting is subject to biases, and ignorance with respect to perception and experience relative to the past or an imagined future.

Self reporting presents difficulties for evaluating due to problems of normalization. This is among other reasons why "social sciences" are typically very soft sciences. Without being able to directly compare the subjective experience of multiple people, their self reporting is only of marginal use and should not contradict behavioral data.

We also need to deal with confounding variables in reporting. A lot of prisoners' lives were extremely shitty before they got into prison; it's what led them there (the general behavior and approach to life, socioeconomic factors, etc.), so it's entirely possible some prisoners report higher life satisfaction than most people because they're comparing their current state to how it was when it was already shitty, and yet objectively have far worse lives as demonstrated by behavioral evidence.

I think people should be able to whatever they want with their own bodies.

Why? Are the consequences of that good or bad?

If I want to on a whim, should I cut off all my fingers and remove my eyes? What would be the consequences of that? Would that be a morally neutral thing for me to do?

Also, how do you know they are using with informed consent? Should dogs be allowed to eat all of the chocolate they want? Should children be allowed to play in the street?
Do you really think adults are much more sensible than children or dogs? Do you think addicts are?

What do you mean by a 'social ill'?

When drugs are visible and readily available, more people will pick them up and use them. The consequence of drug use is harm to individuals, their friends/families, and the economy.

[Jaywalker]

They are wrong in choosing to harm others when they have alternative options, but I don't see why this is relevant.

In a vacuum, considering only instances, it would be irrelevant. In practice, we can use this as a compelling argument. It's about fairness, people respond to that.

It's more like:

We warn people there is a good chance they'll crash their boat on a deserted island, and they shouldn't ride that boat. They don't currently have dogs with them. They don't listen and go crash those boats. We are unable to rescue them, but we send them dogs so they can live longer by eating them.

We're still warning people against riding those boats, tell them they're costing us dogs. But those fucking assholes are still crashing those boats.

At some point, since they keep doing it, we must fix this somehow, either by convincing them to stop riding those boats, or if they can't, getting them to invest in something else we can send them.

Animal testing does produce more harm than good. It's given us many important medical advancements, and is in the process of making more now (ie a cure for cancer).

Let's say for the sake of argument people living longer is good. How are you sure it currently produces more good than harm? How do you know it's going to cure cancer? How do you know largely or completely switching to alternative methods won't result in more good?

I don't think it factors in our evaluation in a significant way.

Fair enough, I don't know the ratio. I see it as another nail in the coffin.

There are reasons people eat meat- it makes them happy, and companies benefit financially. These are not justifiable reasons, like to save your life because you got stranded on an island with a chicken is.

Every reason matters in a justification. It's the sum of all reasons that determine whether something's justified, not only pure survival. Again, this is something off-topic, you don't have to address it. I understand what you're saying, but I want to see why animal testing is justified.

My point is that 'sending a strong message' isn't necessarily relevant.

Note that we don't even have alternatives, yet.

Well, it's seemingly effective propaganda. How come that's not relevant in changing opinions?

If you're judging alternatives and dismissing them based on their current ability to cure cancer or whatever, you have to throw out animal testing too. We have to judge their potential, some alternatives seem promising.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

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.

I'm now unsure what your first post was referring to. Are you talking about taking away medicine?

Right. I was saying that since so many treatable illness already have animal tested medications, it would only be possible to induce dietary change or death in ill people by taking away the medicine.

I now realize this is absurd because it assumes that all illnesses already have treatments / cures, which is obviously not the case.

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).

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

I agree with you.

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.

Interesting. Thanks!

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 agree with you on this now.

Ok, but should every vegan stop worrying about animal testing, or things like circuses, trophy hunting, etc?

Not necessarily. Veg*ns should try to get other veg*ns to stop supporting these things because they are going to be significantly more receptive and willing to, even if its inconvenient. Carnists and meat-eaters often want to find rationalizations for why they can't be veg*n, and pushing these issues on them just gives an excuse to brush veg*nism off as inconvenient or radical. A simple vegetarian allows us to gradually introduce these new ethical concepts as veg*nism becomes part of their identity.

There is likely a point of diminishing returns on manpower invested in leafleting against factory farming.

Certainly, but I don't think we're at that point.

I'm of the opinion that approaching animal rights from various angles produces the best result by creating more cognitive dissonance.

Different angles for different people. The evidence suggests that the vegetarian leafleting angle hits the most often. We should therefore take it the most often.

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.

Sure, but use that ammunition only when you know you've got a good shot. Animal-loving-meat-eaters and carnists are going to be receptive to different points.