Animal Testing

[wonderwiccan]

Products that were tested on animals are unethical, right? It seems clear to me only in the obvious cases. But I get confused the more obscure the example is. There are companies that don't test on animals, for either individual ingredients or the finished product. However, what if they are using products that they know are safe specifically

Comments

[scraatch]

If it's medicine, I believe testing on animals is fine. We have to test it.. otherwise the medication will not be used, or it will and we'll see the complications in humans. No thanks.

I do believe humans are above animals, in that we are clearly the top of the food chain (and don't say a human thrown in the woods would be eaten by a bear.. thats not the way the food chain works. Bears use their teeth, we use our brains). And so, when necessary using them for our needs is fine. What's not ok is using them for our wants... and so I'd say if it;'s something you don't need (makeup, factory farmed meat, etc), it's not ok to use it. But if it's something you do need, that's different.

[wonderwiccan]

For instance, with the makeup, if it uses ingredients that were tested on animals, even if the testing took place a long time ago, by a different company, is that okay? If you think it is okay, how long ago would the testing have to have taken place?

[turnyourback]

so it is morally justifiable to use retarded children or others who have a limited (or none at all) mental capacity to test medicines on because we can reason and use our brains more efficiently than they? i mean, if you can justify using animals based on their mental capacities, why not justify the use of inept humans as well?

[scraatch]

No, because they are still the dominant species.

[scraatch]

Or, I should say, they're still our species. Our responsibilty to our species is higher than our responsibility to other species.

[turnyourback]

how do you reason?
is our responsibility to our race higher than our responsibility to other races?

[scraatch]

No, it is not.

[turnyourback]

please, explain more. i'm intrigued---seeing as both species and race are completely irrelevant moral characteristics upon which i don't believe any qualitative decisions should be made, i'd really like to hear how you got to such a conclusion.

[scraatch]

Here.

[turnyourback]

retarded kids are human, but are they people? no. i still don't understand how you can take a whole species, some of whom are less bright than the species on which you believe it is ethical to test medicine, and justify this decision based on "nature," a characteristic that is completely morally irrelevant? i don't understand. this all boils down to morals, because you're making moral decisions based on nature and species.

[scraatch]

Yes, I'm making my moral decision on nature.

"retarded kids are human, but are they people? no."

Retarded kids are people. O_o

[turnyourback]

it depends on your definition of people (keep in mind it's a different one than that of humans). human is biological, which retarded kids certainly are. whether they're qualitatively people is another matter, and one that i believe is important to consider in the conference of rights to individuals.

also, how can retarded kids be treated as part of the dominant species when they lack all characteristics that made you assert humans were dominant in the first place?

[scraatch]

Have you ever met a retarded person? They're people, I assure you.

As for lacking the characteristics of the dominant species.. I suppose they lack the high level of intelligence humans are known for. But, as they are our species, we have a responsibility to them that is far different from our responsibility to animals. This is also nature. Pack animals protect their weak.

[ushitomo]

Retardation occurs at varying degrees (not to mention in different forms altogether). For the sake of the argument, would you consider that the retardation of the human in question is severe enough to result in significantly less overall intelligence than the average dog or cat? Also, if not a retarded human, how about a catatonic one?

[scraatch]

A retarded or catatonic human is still a human.

[ushitomo]

Yes. The question, though, is what quality does a human have that makes it unethical to perform laboratory testing on humans?

Also, and this is unrelated, but I'm curious: Do you oppose clinical testing on humans (ie, regular measurements and mandated regimens - including drugs not yet approved for the mass market, but not in a laboratory setting, and with restrictions coinciding with basic human rights)?