They’ve dug their own hole there, as far as I’m concerned. Life feeds on life. I think it worth pursuing strategies which would reduce suffering in animals, but not to the extent that we forgo eating meat. Though as the world population increases, it is my understanding that we will have to switch from plants and animals to plants and bugs because animals require too many resources. That was discussed to some extent so far in this thread and I feel a little confused on the matter. Meats represent fairly dense sources of energy, relative to plants, so they have that huge advantage, but if that is offset by the need for lots of land to raise the animals, then as we grow in population and need more and more land—for ourselves, for farming, for ranching—then meats may grow to be too expensive. Probably the best hope for spreading vegetarianism is to breed like mad. 
I cede that it’s impossible to know the conscious state of such an animal, nor of whether their reactions have analogues in internal emotional state in a similar fashion that we do. However, I think that’s a philosophical distinction akin to the possibility of knowing whether any animal experiences reality in a similar way once similarity of physiology is demonstrated. I mean, even plants have base levels of reactivity (which may be why avoiding certain stimuli is not a good qualifier of the capacity to feel pain), but they do not have a central nervous system. I think a heuristic based on our fundamental and incontrovertible ignorance is that we should avoid deliberate commission of what would appear to induce pain, despite being unable to rely on any objective data to determine the conscious experience of feeling pain (self-report and just noticeable difference tests are not an adequate proxy in my opinion). I actually don’t have an issue with a social contract that isn’t based on that heuristic and that has a cut-off at the species level, but I think it ought to be consistent (if reducing the suffering of other animals is not a valid proposition, then humans should not be culpable for commission of animal suffering) and practitioners should accept that it is no more objective than any other cut-off level (at least, the problem of simple enumeration would indicate that it is possible for another human to feel no pain).
As for the problem of the naturalistic fallacy: I’ve mulled over it a bit. Wikipedia lists it as a formal fallacy, from what I can tell. However I can’t formulate a logical argument to grant its status as a fallacy. Sorry if it appeared that I were ignoring your argument, I thought it was a very trenchant one. First of all I was going to try to assail what I thought was the deductive nature of your argument (just because premises and conclusions are true in some cases, doesn’t mean argument isn’t fallacious), but that would be a strawman of your argument. It also doesn’t help to refer to the fact that we use heuristics that would be fallacious if considered as a logical argument such as the appeal to popularity in voting. Would it be fair to state that for an argument to be considered fallacious it merely has to be demonstrated that the conclusion does not always follow from the premises? Even under those circumstances, one may hold a tautological definition of good as anything that is natural. In which case such an argument would be redundant rather than explicitly fallacious. Once “good” is defined as something other than “natural” it can be demonstrated that things that occur in nature do not match such definitions though. The only issue is that it may be impossible to alight at an objective definition of “good”, which is really a problem for the relativism thread.
I thought about this argument too:
Which I don’t think matches the definition on the wiki at least. I mean it may be a reductionistic argument to conflate the sensation of feeling pain with the organ that is responsible for the capacity (matching the hard problem of consciousness as describing consciousness as a product or the output of the brain), I don’t think it’s an explicitly naturalistic argument.
Yes. A formal fallacy is an error in reasoning, not in conclusion. The conclusion may be true: it just doesn’t follow from the argument.
Correct. Moore in Principia Ethica takes some pains to establish that agreed-upon use of the word “good” in a moral sense cannot sensibly be identified so. I am pretty sure I agree with him, actually. I waffle a bit on this argument. But it does not serve either me or Moore to tell utilitarians and others that they’re wrong and that’s that.
The assertion here is that we cannot associate “pleasure” with “good” is substantially the same as associating “pain” with “bad.” If one is an example of the naturalistic fallacy, then so is the other. Hope that clears up my remarks.
Yes, I understand the sentiment behind them now. This criticism is probably insurmountable for any claims utilitarianism has on reality, except when stated provisionally. If we accept certain premises without determining they correspond objectively to reality, then we can determine ways to apply them in a way that is logically consistent. Almost everyone starts with roughly utilitarian principles*, though their notions of where they should be applied differ.
For the sake of argument, we could phrase it as: psychopaths seeking their own pleasure, racists prioritising the pleasure of those of their own skin phenotype, nationalists prioritising the pleasure of their fellow citizens and so forth. The cut off points where they determine certain entities of being less deserving of sympathy may be based on cognitive biases (of which Dunbar discovered one, from what I recall and Sherif may have demonstrated another).
- I by no means intend to demonstrate that they’re valid for being widely adopted, I acknowledge that they may not correspond to reality at all. In fact, their prevalence would lend support to the idea that appealing to them is really just a slightly obscured naturalistic fallacy. I also know of one or two exceptions, such as Nozick’s property rights (which strikes me as a free market version of Ephesians 6:5) or divine fiat (which invokes Euthyphro’s dilemma).
Anyway, I’ve posited a heuristic that is not based on empiricism, but seems internally consistent to me. However, in the course of arguing for it, I’m seeing the Is/Ought distinction even more clearly (for example, this strategy is more stable for societies, or this policy will increase lifespan, which humans desire: but why should we desire longer lives or stable socieities other than because of our natural desire for pleasure?).
Edit:
I suppose our ignorance could be controvertible with sufficient technology, which would allow us to experience the consciousness of other organisms. I can’t predict such technology developing during our lifetimes though.
Ah, forgot to mention…
I really didn’t intend it as an appeal to emotion, I just wanted to demonstrate that it can be quite difficult to interpret behaviour. We recognise universality in human emotions now, but Feingold arrived at a cognitive bias which may hamper our ability to sympathise with individuals that have a different skin phenotype from us. Likewise it seems apparent that infants feel pain now, but scientists that were otherwise attuned to human suffering ignored it historically.
That said, I think I’ll make an appeal to emotion here. I don’t really mind meat eating to any great degree: I am to an extent a pragmatist and I highly value my friendships. I started responding to this thread the day after I was invited to a barbecue, which I tended to and used different forks to flip the burgers and turn the sausages so as not to annoy a Jewish friend. I didn’t purchase any meat for the barbecue though, just pretzels and crisps (or chips, if you insist). I don’t argue vegetarianism with my friends and they frequently forget that I even claim to be one (sometimes, if I’m staying with friends and they insist, I eat meat… I don’t feel particularly guilty about it as I do not purchase it and it happens very infrequently). I ate fish until two years ago and my sister pointed out my hypocrisy, so I halted that. I am not a vegan, though I have started eating less cheese, partially for health reasons and partially due to the fact that someone pointed out that cheese requires more energy than poultry to produce (probably as a result of energy loss through trophic levels). I did purchase leather shoes for my last job interview, which was unsuccessful anyway.
The reason I even started responding to this thread is because I thought some of the arguments in favour of eating meat were inconsistent. While it’s entirely possible to eschew the pleasure principle in defence of eating meat, I don’t think doing so would resemble our current system of ethics (which may be an appeal to tradition or popularity). At any rate, I don’t think that purchasing meat for consumption in the current market is consistent with the ethics outlined in the OP*. Whether such ethics are valid or not is an independent question.
- A more complex question is whether there is a Utilitarian argument for keeping animals in captivity to consume (or even not) if their lives are substantially improved during the course of that captivity, as the issue then shifts to whether the denial of future pleasure can be weighed against the protection from potential pain during the course of their life.
about the video:
it was kind of gross, but not in a compellingly emotional way. the only animal that looked even mildly distressed at any point was the second cow, and i think he looked more spastic due to not having a good footing more than “fear.” that will forever be up to speculation or debate–but i’m content in saying cows are pretty wild-eyed in general and often make faces that look rather distressed. being around them (i live in oklahoma) i think they are idiot-animals who have kind of crazy eyes–they look just as distressed when they are baying in heat as that one did on the killing floor. they have the same crazy, wild eyes when they’d run up to the feed trucks on the ranch. it’s part of why i never trusted them—they just look crazy.
i’m not saying it’s more acceptable to eat them because they are IMO “stupid,” nor am i saying the fact we can’t pin down their emotion is a reason to pretend they don’t have them.
i’m just pointing out trying to pin an emotion to their crazy, walleyed faces is fairly impossible.
seeing how quickly they are dispatched in the video–and the chickens–kind of makes me think they don’t do a whole lot of suffering–at least not in the aspect of pain leading up to their death. the cows, for sure, seem to be mindlessly walking into the holding mechanism, oblivious, and then it’s over, before their brain could possibly perceive pain.
===
as for the rest of the post, the problem i see on this (and all) forum(s) when it comes to these kind of debates is everything gets so nit-picked and every tiny point debated ad infinitum, and most points becomes lost in the ethers of it all.
really, i don’t know why i even partake in this process. **Trust **didn’t post looking to have their mind changed, nor did i post to change anyone’s mind. no one here is going to switch positions, no matter how cogent a point the other side makes. ultimately, this is all masturbatory.
i have no problem with people being vegetarian or vegan.
i DO have a problem with people being vegetarian and/or vegan proselytizing.
this is especially compounded when people take a moralistic or ethical stance on the use of animals as products, food, or laborers and extend that concept across humanity without exception. this is when i have to say, “wait. what?” because there’s simply no method that we, as humans, on a mass scale, can culture foodstuffs without some animals dying, incidentally or directly.
we couldn’t have gotten to this point in history, advanced to this place that we “don’t need animals as much” without the ethical equivocation necessary to let animals carry us here. i think it’s just a pompous attitude to say “yes, i will benefit from the thousands of years of animal usage and i will enjoy this privileged point in civilization…but i will preach about how wrong it is to use animals.”
to me, that reads the same as a guy who gambled for years until he got rich, gave up gambling BECAUSE he was rich, then starts preaches about how immoral and terrible and wrong people who gamble are–and uses the concept of being rich as proof people don’t need to gamble. never mind he’s only rich because he gambled, never mind he had no moral conflict until he was in a point of privileged choice…
it just doesn’t jibe. it’s not an argument for omnivorism, it’s just a point about the hypocrisy of preachy nonmnivors.
in the case of “least harm” principle, vegans/vegs want to say farming incidentally kills far fewer living “neurologically complex” animals than equal omnivorous diets would require. that is just an assumption–no one has a very solid handle on the real numbers involved.
i just think it’s a peculiar notion that, without adequate evidence, veg/vegans presume their method is the least harmful.
they don’t have that 1:1 animal died and is on plate analysis, so they presume they are doing the greater good.
but that’s not really based on reality.
reality is, culturing foodstuffs kills animals to varying degrees.
this is why i don’t think it’s a matter ethics when you really boil it all down.
animals *are *food. they are food for other animals, and we are the human animal. we do have this burden of contemplative pontification and moralizing due to our higher-functioning nature, but i don’t see why that obligates us to manifest emotional attributes on animals and let these presumptions guide our diet.
i cannot over emphasize that the american diet is not right. not in a moral sense but in a “we don’t eat healthy” sense.
we need to cut back on red meats. totally. and if we did, the mass-scale “more prone to animal suffering” production methods would change by default.
how much animals suffer is too hard to procure in a realistic sense…but people who abstain from eating meat for that reason alone (or even if they buckle that into a group of reasons) do so because they need to alleviate some kind of liberal guilt. they empathize with their individual, speculative concept of animal sentience and need to feel less guilty, so not eating meat is their solution.
and that’s fine.
for them.
*only *them.
**Trust **kind of reneged on the OP and said something along the lines of “if you see there’s a problem and do what you think you can to help, that’s good enough.”
to that end, i think we all *are *doing something.
animal rights are (almost) universally upheld to one degree or another.
guys who hunt every game animal in every season still won’t stand for someone torturing a kitten. we all want to limit human and animal suffering to varying degrees–we all just have a difference scale of what that means.
i dont know what the answer is–but i do know there’s not some blanket of ethics that can be cast over all of humanity when it comes to eating meat.
this is lengthy, but i’ll close with this:
around the turn of the century, there were several plagues of man-eating big cats, all hunted and killed by one single man.
while he had the capacity and moral leniency to hunt and kill precious exotic animals, he also had the best-interests of the animals in mind. yes, he killed the few that needed to be dealt with–but spend most of his time lobbying for the safety and well-being of all the others. he was a rabid naturalist and wanted preserves to keep the animals safe and healthy.
while i would never, ever, morally be able to kill an animal, i can’t for a second pretend i’m more ethical than this man. the yard stick is too impossible to make universal.
our relationship with animals is sacred and magical, and complex and far beyond simplistic pontification.
It appears that now is the part where we talk about why we participate in a particular thread.
For me the issue IS animal cruelty and suffering, and it disturbs me greatly to see people waste their energy on unsuccessful strategies for change. Be a vegetarian or vegan, I don’t care, but if you want to reduce animal suffering, what you chose for dinner is not making any difference. Except perhaps, to your level of guilt for participating in the suffering of animals. But it’s not actually helping any animals.
whole heartily agree.
it appeases human guilt. that’s why they maintain the combined harvesting is “least harm.” because there’s no 1:1 ratio of dead things on their plate, so the guilt factor is diminished.
(btw i want this thread to diiiiiie noooooow).
For me, humans are animals. I disagree very strongly with the whole line of thought that we’re “above” animals in the sense that our “animal instincts” are base or vulgar and should be cast aside (to the extent they can be cast aside). Grant me more than the wolf because you think I am more than the wolf, and we have no dispute. Don’t grant me less, for which I think you will be in error in every way imaginable.
There may be excellent reasons to not eat meat, or not engage in factory farming, just like there are excellent reasons for not rolling around in corpses or pissing anywhere I feel like it, and I am open to such reasoning. I am not opposed to the idea that eating meat could be unethical, but the arguments I have heard always depend in critical ways on notions I think are unsound, unworkable, inconsistently applied, or otherwise in error.
I disagree. I do not purchase goods from Nestlé either. I find their business practices unacceptable. If I could convince enough people of that proposition, this would have a measurable impact on their sales and they would be forced to apologise for their unethical business practices.
Where do you think this has been used as a premise to support vegetarianism? I, for one, try to use the modifier “other” when referring to animals other than humans. I think it should humble us to remember that we share a common ancestor with every form of life on Earth.
I agree, in most/many circumstances. The problem here, as I’ve stated here and in my thread from a few months ago, is that meat-eating is much too popular to ever be changed sufficiently to make a meaningful impact. Since there are alternative solutions (for the problem itself, not each individual’s guilt about participating) that don’t involve convincing enormous numbers of people to give up meat, I think time, energy and money are better directed towards those solutions.
After all, McDonald’s demand of its pork producers will ultimately have a hundred thousand times the impact that any number of vegans would have, for the reasons I cite in the other thread: pork producers care about what their consumers want, not what the people who are not consuming their product want. McDonald’s demanding humane pork production will result in humane pork production for hundreds of millions, billions of hogs now and in the future. Ten million people going vegan will change nothing, except maybe a tiny reduction in hog production overall, maybe. Which in no way helps the hogs that ARE born.
Our OP made the point somewhere in these pages. Here are some selections from page 1:
If you are saying it is unethical to eat factory farmed meat then we agree on 99% of the issue.
I love the old guy in this video! And especially how you can tell how the pigs are happy. Now if only they showed the slaughter and this were possible to meet our current demand for food. A few down, billions more to go.
No one has provided any explanation for why “others” should be only those who are similar to us. Everyone so far seems to admit that animals experience pain, yet no one has provided a logical reason why that pain should be ignored.
So only humans are worth consideration? How can you possibly rationalize that?
Up above you said that you are against factory farms. So that is 99% of the meat. So your opinion is that any meat we buy from just about any restaurant, fast food restaurant, etc. is not ethical. But if you buy the 0.001% of meat where the animals did not have tails cut off, testicles cut off, poor slaughter, etc. then that is okay? If that is the case, then we are much closer to each others opinion than you think.
I think conventional meat eating is unethical, yes.
Correct. I reject the idea that this is ethical simply because we have free will to choose. As I said earlier, the chain of free will was broken long before we ever had a choice. I will clarify my original post in a few posts. I have spent so much time responding to rationalizations that I have not had time to focus on expanding the original post.
Have you read my posts where I admit that I am unethical or that I would be the first to be stoned if we lived in an eye for an eye society?
This is a good post. If this is how things were, we would never be having a discussion. Do I think an enlightened society (who no longer has a skewed viewpoint of how animals should be treated) would still think it ethical to raise and kill animals? Not even close. I reject this based on number ten in this post http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past/ten-reasons-not-to-abolish-slavery/
Is this a million times better than factory farms? You bet your ass.
You seemed to be implying that ownership implied that you can do with the animal as you please since you were relating the propery of animals as meat with the ownership of animals as pets. They are vastly different.
I have not avoided anything. You give an example of how you show degradations of humans and measure pain in them and I will relate it to animals.
You admit animals feel pain yet choose to deny them as “others”. Why? This has nothing to do with private beliefs, but actual logic. If we say that animals have a capacity to suffer, we are obligated to give them equal consideration. (Note that this is not the same as equal worth though some have mistaken it for that.)
I should have specified some of the applications. To create rennet for cheese for example, we use to slaughter young calves and use their stomachs. Now we use man made rennet in 90% of our cheese production.
I like when people doubt. All the more better when it becomes a reality.
Where do I say animals fear death? Apparently we are not even disagreeing. I think you just took my, “animals do not want to die”, as animals fear death. I don’t know how you make that jump.
So animals do want to die? I have yet to meet an animal who volunteers to go to the kill floor, sticks out its neck, and asks for the blade. You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am saying that animals evolved to avoid death. They do not want to die.
Equal consideration means you take their lives into account. It means we don’t make up rationalizations for why we should ignore their consideration. Note that this does not mean that you treat them as equal to humans.
Then we are not disagreeing on much.
I would like to see the slaughter on this farm. This would also be like me claiming that the cheese I eat is ethical because some random farm is able to produce milk without very much suffering. You can’t take a look at a few hundred animals and then compare it to tens of billions of animals and say, “Well, there you go. Ethical!”. I am still unethical in my daily life. I am still unethical just about every single day. This also has not taken into account the feasibility of actually raising animals like this. Do we have enough space in the world to give billions of animals the space they deserve with the exponential growth in human population? Are we okay with clearing land for this? Are people willing to pay many, many times the amount of money for food like this? Even if I accept your argument that exploiting others as long as they do not suffer and that it is possible to separate that suffering, this is not a feasible solution. It might be for you. That is good. I would applaud you for doing something. But to claim that this is a solution for society as a whole is very short sighted. Is it a temporary solution? Of course.
As someone who has deeply studied this and looked at the feasibility of all options, I can tell you with a very high certainty that this is much more likely than us going any where near a step 5+ system in the world.
Of course it is valid. The parallels are undeniable. Humans denied moral consideration to blacks, full well knowing that they had a capacity to suffer. Humans deny moral consideration to animals, full well knowing that they have a capacity to suffer. In both cases, we went from full out denial of consideration, to partial consideration, to finally admitting that they deserve full consideration.
When the slaughterhouses are being audited, they have about a 3% kill fail rate. That is when we are watching! You are arguing that it is possible to exploit others without suffering and that is a tough sell. We can fool some people that this is possible.
I think we are somewhat on the same page then.
I have studied William Wilberforce and how he spent his entire life getting shot down. I realize that I might be on my death bed and still not reach quite where I want to be. I am okay with that.
Anti-slavery activists were always a minority within American society. Most activists received opposition from either those who downright opposed slavery or those who did not want the issue to be a politically dividing issue. I get that this is the same way. I am okay with that.
The reason you see this as arbitrary is because we tend to deny equal consideration for our own benefit. There is no logical reason to deny equal consideration to animals if we admit that animals have a capacity to suffer.
Too clarify:
- I am not a vegan. I eat cheese.
- I fully admit that I am unethical. It does not matter that I am trying to move away from this. In my current state, I am unethical.
- I do not argue against all forms of animal use. What I do claim is that we have to use the golden rule which itself implies that we take equal consideration of all parties involved. If we want to then break the golden rule, the burden of proof lies on us to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the greater good wins.
Although my OP still stands, there are two exceptions:
-
If you need to eat meat to survive
-
This person is eating meat yet still keeps the golden rule:
http://blog.tedmed.com/?tag=in-vitro-meat
Let’s start with simple points to make sure we know what we agree on and then move on to find what we do not agree on. Do you disagree with any of these points:
1)Animals feel pain
2)Humans feel pain
3)Since animals feel pain, they have a capacity to suffer
4)Since humans feel pain, they have a capacity to suffer
5)Since animals have the capacity to suffer, their lives must be taken into consideration
6)Since humans have the capacity to suffer, their lives must be taken into consideration
7)It is unethical to fail to take into consideration the suffering of an animal who has the capacity to suffer
8)It is unethical to fail to take into consideration the suffering of a human who has the capacity to suffer
9)Taking an animals life into consideration means studying what they go through
10)Taking a humans life into consideration means studying what they go through
11)Without prior knowledge or studying what an animal goes through, you are failing to take their lives into consideration
12)Without prior knowledge or studying what a human goes through, you are failing to take their lives into consideration
From a high level view, do you agree with these points so far?
Trust, your posts are disintgrating into meaningless goo, even you don’t know what you’re saying anymore.
:smack:
:smack:
That you seem to genuinely believe that evolving to avoid death = not wanting to die reflects the utter pointlessness of trying to pursue this further, and I don’t mean that as rude, it’s just a fact. The distinction between these two things is profound and very meaningful in the context of considering whether animals suffer in relation to their deaths. That you are blind to the distinction means this is hopeless.
I’m happy for you that you are doing what you believe is good and right. Hell, I’m happy that you consciously consider whether your behavior is in line with your ethical beliefs, which is more than most people manage to do.
But I am very sad that people who think as you do seem to really believe that their personal choice of what to have for dinner is actually making a difference in the suffering of animals. It’s not, and feeling content with that choice as meaningful allows them to let themselves off the hook for doing more. I hope that isnt’ true for you.
Let me reiterate my ethics again:
- The golden rule. Do to others what you would want done to yourself, if you were them. I follow this because it takes every living being into consideration (is completely unbiased) and attempts to give what everyone wants to themselves. To accomplish this I start asking simple questions:
-Do mother hens like to be stuffed into cages?
-Do chickens like to have their beaks burned off?
-Do male cows like having their testicles cut off without pain killers?
-Do animals enjoy getting stunned or their throat slit and being in pain for anywhere from a few seconds to minutes?
-Do cows enjoy being taken from their mothers?
If I answer no to even one of these, I break the golden rule with 99% of meat. If I say “No. Mother hens do not like to be stuffed into cages” after I study them, then it therefore is equivalent to: “I would not want to be stuffed into a cage if I were the animal”. This has nothing to do with anthropomorphizing or whatever other rationalizations we can come up with. It has to do with logic. It is important that we imagine what the animal is going through so we do not ignore their interest. If you actually think of this in terms of what you would want if you were literally that animal, then you actually start to make decisions based on equal consideration and not just our own selfish motives. 99.9% of all decisions end here.
- If needed, you can violate the golden rule, but only when you can verifiably demonstrate that the greater good will win with Utilitarianism/Least Harm Principle. For example, it is normally wrong to kill. Killing Hitler breaks the golden rule. However, I can verifiably demonstrate that Hitler is breaking the golden rule for millions of Jews and causing unspeakable amounts of suffering. I can therefore step in to protect the innocent. I follow non-violent principles so I would rather capture Hitler, but it does not change the ethics.
I admit that I am unethical and I do what I have in my power to change that. If we are trying to prevent suffering even knowing that we are unethical, why would we feel guilt? I can’t speak for anyone else, but if I was not trying to change things then, yes, I would feel guilty. But I am trying everything I can to change things. I am sad that I can’t change it. But I am not necessarily feeling guilty.
As I have said earlier, our carniverous pets need meat to survive. We should be looking at alternatives (which we are).
Don’t you think we have gone past our cave men days? I would just consider this the old world vs. the new world. I literally believe that the wolf will live with the lamb (Isaiah 11:6). I have a mechanism for how it will work though it won’t be in any of our lifetimes.
How much suffering is too much suffering for your child? This is a good question. I follow the golden rule and only break the golden rule if I can demonstrate that the greater good will win. If we all followed this, we would be damn close to heaven.
I am not so much concerned with the fact that we had slavery and benefited from them.
I am more concerned that we recognized that it was immoral and we got away from it as fast as possible.
I am not so much concerned with the fact that bad people created the Holocaust.
I am more concerned that good people did nothing.
I am not so much concerned with the fact that we used animals and benefited from them.
I am more concerned that we recognized that it was immoral and we got away from it as fast as possible.
I am not an expert on horses or why riding a horse even breaks the golden rule. (Although given the fact that in theory at least, getting milk seems so innocent until you see how much we have abused it in our modern system, it is entirely possible that I am ignorant of horse suffering.)
It is obsolete in the sense that it is no longer needed. I fully agree that it is not obsolete in the fact that we are not willing to give it up.
I will respond to this in my next post as this is a very important question with a very important answer.
I do not feel guilty, per se. I think I would feel guilty if I was not trying my best. Not out of an obligation, but because I simply want to do everything in my power to stop the suffering.
This is a very important point that I think needs to be discussed. As someone who is an animal advocate, you might think that I would be against all animal experimentation. However, I am not. It would be great if we were all Christ-like and actually wanted to sacrifice for the greater good regardless of our own suffering. But the reality is that we do not. So hear me out.
As always, my ethics depend on the golden rule and Utilitarianism/Least Harm Principle. Right off the bat, some tests do not violate the golden rule at all. If we have a mouse running through a maze to get some cheese, this really does not violate the golden rule. If there is a detectable amount of physical or mental pain inserted into the experiment, it violates the golden rule. So I have three internal metrics I follow to determine whether the experiment is justified:
-
Have all alternatives been demonstratingly ruled out. The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing is a great resource though there are many more. Examples of this include how we use to kill a rabbit every time we wanted to see if a woman was pregnant. Now we have pregnancy tests. Another example is how we use to send pigs through car crashes. Now we have crash test dummies that are far more advanced than the old method without the suffering.
-
If there are no alternatives available, we must study the animals and quantify the amount of pain involved. We must ask what they would want. Since we are following the golden rule, we must imagine what it would be like to be them going through this experiment after asking what they want and do not want. Equal consideration is given. However, since empathy is difficult for people to even give to other people, we should encourage others to question whether they would perform the experiment on a newborn child. Newborn children can be far less mentally advanced than many animals. Since human children are less mentally aware yet are so valuable at the same time, it provides a good way to determine if the golden rule should be broken. Most people feel obligated to take into account the moral consideration of the child. If we are being unbiased, we would take equal consideration of the animals.
-
If you would still break the golden rule, we must demonstrate that the greater good will win. That the probably outcome of the experiment will yield better results than if we did not, but taking into account equal consideration of interests.
**
Some people will say that animals saved their lives. That if we did not experiment on them, you would not be here today. But if the animals truly saved your life, don’t you owe it to the animals so that no other animals ever have to suffer again?**