The military says that the training exercises are a necessary part of saving the lives of service personnel (some of them involve injecting animals with nerve agents and then military personnel revive them, with evidently no long-term problems). There are regulations, and the videos show that the military sometimes violates them.
Is it ok to use animals for this type of training? We use them in other kinds of live-saving research. I wish we didn’t have to do it, but within limits, I think it’s an unavoidable side-effect of our defense capabilities.
Live pigs have been used for ballistic testing of bullets since well - since ballistic testing was done. Warning, Video not for the squeamish, live pigs being shot Pig flesh is a very close substitute for human flesh in this regard. It bothers me more that people eat baconators without bothering to think where that yummy bacon came from, much less the hamburger.
I’m not trying to single you out, it’s very pervasive; but it’s almost bizarre the way the word defense is used, rather than military, or war fighting.
It’s a shame that occasionally the animals die in these exercises, however, I don’t think that a truly accurate simulation could be generated here. These guys need to know what it feels like to lose a life.
We kill millions of animals every day worldwide just because we like the taste of them(myself included)so if people live as a result of an animals death in an exercise then its ethically one up on that.
Well, I’d hope that the edible ones (that is, the ones that aren’t dangerous to consume because of poisons administered) are at least eaten after being killed, or put to some other use, but I doubt it.
First point:
These training sessions are performed on anesthetized animals, which are not killed. The adverse effects for the animal are very limited, whereas the benefits for the people who train are important. This seems quite ethical to me.
However, second point:
When it comes to ehtics, you can argue endlessly, especially when you are debating in the media or on some other kind of public space, where actual facts matter very little. As the millitary point out, there are regulations about what is allowed. If the PCRM has something specific to reproach to the millitary, let it file an actual complaint for violation of ethical rules. With actual facts in it.
Anyway, third point: let’s read again what the PCRM complains about and go for some point-by-point reply:
One nice sentence which sounds nice but acually means nothing (you can try to figure out what it means concretely and you will realize that you can come to one hundrer different interpretations)
Booooooh it’s inhumane. It’s not as if the military were giving anestethics to the animals. That would be or humane thing to do. Oh, wait a sec, don’t they give anesthetics ?
Which regulation ? If you have some actual violation to complain about, just say it !
Sure ! What do you suggest, training on human subjects ? So much more ethical ! Using some simulation ? So much more efficient !
And well, fourth, without going into the ad hominem arguments, a little google and a look at their website shows that the PCRM is an an-animal-experimentation organization. Of course I’m not trying to insinuate that these organization are fundamentally lacking objectivity. Or, am I ?