Vegan and pro Animals in Medical Experiments

[Cirion Spellbinder]

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

Yes, I do think that. Most people also try to (or at least want to) be good, but (from my experience) they are terrible at effective altruism.

[EquALLity]

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.

Good points.

Also, I don't think we should base this off of happiness.
Obviously they aren't correlated, but you can be unhappy and want to live very much, for whatever reason.

But I don't know about using behavioral data. How would that be analyzed in practice? Who determines what behavior is reckless, prison guards who are predisposed to be harsh? How do we calculate all of this?

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?

I was just generalizing. Obviously I don't think dogs should be able to eat all the chocolate they want.

Informed consent is what I think matters here, and most people know that drugs are harmful, so I don't really see that as an issue. I think that marijuana, like cigarettes, should be required to be sold with facts about the dangers of it. That would pretty much completely solve the issue.
I also think that people who are addicted to drugs should be ethically rehabilitated by force, for their own good.

The main reason why I don't think hard drugs should be legalized is because of potential harm that could result towards other people in taking them, thereby violating the consent of those people.
But if it's only impacting your body, and you know what you're doing, I think you should be able to do what you want.

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.

How is it harmful to the economy? I'd think it stimulates the economy.

Drug use isn't always that harmful to people who take drugs. It could be a net good, or it could be slightly harmful, but their bodies are their bodies. I think serious issues are mainly with hard drugs.
The relevant harm towards friends and families is due to addiction, and I think that we should rehabilitate addicts.

[EquALLity]

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

Yes, I do think that. Most people also try to (or at least want to) be good, but (from my experience) they are terrible at effective altruism.

Do you think that the logical consequence of that is that we should try to promote human death?

[EquALLity]

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.

People 'responding to it' because they think it makes sense doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense. It's just convincing people to agree with something irrational and harmful.

"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."
Of course we should try to make people be healthier in the first place, and work to develop alternatives.
But at the moment, many many people in the world already have terrible health problems, and we don't have the alternatives yet. We also can't convince everyone, and most people probably don't get sick because of personal choices.

We need a safety net.

If animal testing produces more good than no animal testing, even though animal testing is unfair to non-human animals, it's by definition morally justified.

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?

What alternative methods?

Of course I don't know that it's going to cure cancer, but it's provided significant progress in the development of a cure, and it's our best shot at a cure at the moment.

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

It's a barely relevant point, so I don't think it matters.

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.

It's not off topic; it's about the rationale behind one of your reasons attempting to justify your opposition to animal testing.

One reason you are using is that flat out opposing animal testing 'sends a strong message' that leads to less animal testing (presumably in a significant way, or it wouldn't really matter).
I'm asking for the logic behind this reason.

You said that it's happened with cosmetics, but my point is that that's not valid reasoning, because animal testing for cosmetics and medicine are completely different. You're comparing apples and oranges.

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.

I don't see it as effective in any meaningful way.

Again, what alternatives are you referring to, specifically?
From my understanding, they just don't exist. I want them to exist; I have to reason to be biased in favor of animal testing. I just don't know what alternatives you keep alluding to.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Do you think that the logical consequence of that is that we should try to promote human death?

We should try to promote them to make dietary changes first (and as a result live), and if that doesn't work, let them die or suffer the consequences of their disease until they die or make changes.

[Jaywalker]

People 'responding to it' because they think it makes sense doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense. It's just convincing people to agree with something irrational and harmful.

Maybe I'm not explaining well. Morally justified does not mean anything by itself in a comparison of multiple outcomes. We should avoid false dilemmas. Since not every morally justified outcome is equally preferable/good, if we have reason to think another path may result in more good, we're obligated to follow it instead.

I'd already said that in a different way in a previous post though. The other part about it being compelling is not the reason I'm against animal testing, it's why I think it's a good argument. Other than that, I don't know what to tell you.

It's not off topic; it's about the rationale behind one of your reasons attempting to justify your opposition to animal testing.

The off-topic part is the semantics of "justifiable reason".

I understand that you think animal testing is justified, and cosmetic testing is not, yes.

It's a barely relevant point, so I don't think it matters.

Is it really barely relevant, and how do you know? What percentage of animal testing is useless? If you don't know, how do you dismiss it?

Again, what alternatives are you referring to, specifically?

There are lists on PETA's site and other sites and more information on them through google. In-vitro (organs on chips) seems the most promising. It seems like you're dismissing these methods because they haven't been used to find (as far as I know) cures or treatments yet. So they're "incomplete", if you judge them by that standard, not fit to be used. It's a catch-22, because they must first be used to find cures, but they must be shown to have found cures to be used as a method in the first place. Maybe I misunderstood you.

We can also test on inmates and volunteers as brimstoneSalad said.

[Jaywalker]

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.

[...]

I see. So on an individual level, bring up these things if they're likely to work.

What I'm wondering is if it would be better if all organisations stopped touching upon it altogether and devoted all manpower to campaigning against factory farming. I have a hard time imagining that.

[EquALLity]

Maybe I'm not explaining well. Morally justified does not mean anything by itself in a comparison of multiple outcomes. We should avoid false dilemmas. Since not every morally justified outcome is equally preferable/good, if we have reason to think another path may result in more good, we're obligated to follow it instead.

I'd already said that in a different way in a previous post though. The other part about it being compelling is not the reason I'm against animal testing, it's why I think it's a good argument. Other than that, I don't know what to tell you.

I agree, except you don't have an outcome that would produce better results I'm aware of.

The off-topic part is the semantics of "justifiable reason".

I understand that you think animal testing is justified, and cosmetic testing is not, yes.

That's not my point, though. My point is that, because of this, that is why we can't expect similar results when speaking out against each form of animal testing.

Those results wouldn't necessarily be positive, also, because we need animal testing for medical advancements, while we don't for cosmetics.

Is it really barely relevant, and how do you know? What percentage of animal testing is useless? If you don't know, how do you dismiss it?

It's barely relevant because it's not an issue of animal testing as a whole. It's nit-picking specific unnecessary tests.
It means we need to prevent unnecessary tests, not throw out animal testing as a whole.

There are lists on PETA's site and other sites and more information on them through google. In-vitro (organs on chips) seems the most promising. It seems like you're dismissing these methods because they haven't been used to find (as far as I know) cures or treatments yet. So they're "incomplete", if you judge them by that standard, not fit to be used. It's a catch-22, because they must first be used to find cures, but they must be shown to have found cures to be used as a method in the first place. Maybe I misunderstood you.

Promising, sure. But it's not even finished being developed, so it's not a viable alternative.

We can also test on inmates and volunteers as brimstoneSalad said.

We cannot legally test on inmates because of the Constitution, and we wouldn't have enough volunteers.

[EquALLity]

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.

[...]

I see. So on an individual level, bring up these things if they're likely to work.

What I'm wondering is if it would be better if all organisations stopped touching upon it altogether and devoted all manpower to campaigning against factory farming. I have a hard time imagining that.

I definitely think that would be better.

Factory farming is clearly unjustifiable, and might literally lead to the destruction of a suitable climate for the planet.
It kills and tortures way more animals than the testing, is bad for human health (in contrast to testing), and is literally destroying the planet.

[brimstoneSalad]

But I don't know about using behavioral data. How would that be analyzed in practice?

The best we have to go on is suicide rates, which is a behavioral indication that somebody has really low life satisfaction.
Of course, it would be great to get better metrics on that.

Informed consent is what I think matters here, and most people know that drugs are harmful, so I don't really see that as an issue.

I think you need to meet some drug addicts and talk to them. Ask them if they knew this was what it was going to be like, if they would have chosen not to start using. If you visit a local clinic, you may be able to meet some.

I think that marijuana, like cigarettes, should be required to be sold with facts about the dangers of it. That would pretty much completely solve the issue.

As a vegan activist, you know there's a big difference between being told something, and understanding/believing/accepting it.

I also think that people who are addicted to drugs should be ethically rehabilitated by force, for their own good.

Unfortunately, the issue is recidivism. You can get somebody clean, but you can't keep that person clean. People with substance abuse issues yo-yo between sober and fucked up constantly.

This is a case where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And the best prevention is reducing availability.

The war on the war on drugs is a little like the war on vaccines... these drugs have been illegal for so long, not many people can remember what it was like when they were available at the corner store.

The main reason why I don't think hard drugs should be legalized is because of potential harm that could result towards other people in taking them, thereby violating the consent of those people.

Surely there is that too, yes.

But if it's only impacting your body, and you know what you're doing, I think you should be able to do what you want.

This is the point I think you're having trouble with. Talk to some addicts, if you can. You could also search youtube, there are probably some good channels from addicts there.

How is it harmful to the economy? I'd think it stimulates the economy.

Coffee stimulates the economy, because it provides more of a boost than a drain. Cigarettes are a stimulant too, but they're actually harmful to the economy because of the increased sick days smokers take, and their early deaths (a productive citizen dying has an enormous economic cost).
Depressants like weed are extremely harmful to the economy, it may have some benefits for anxiety, but not only does smoking it cause cancer too, it also saps productivity due to being a depressant, and long term usage even results in some brain damage which isn't exactly beneficial either. Alcohol is terrible too (probably worse than weed), but may have some limited benefits in certain cases. Most harder drugs are even worse, with still fewer benefits.

Drug use isn't always that harmful to people who take drugs.

Caffeine is a rare outlier. Most drug use is inherently harmful. Depressants have very few practical uses. You have to look at a cost:benefit analysis. Economic expenditure on drugs (and the revenue it generates for the state) isn't likely to make up for the harms.