My animal welfare dilemma.

I turned vegetarian recently. My main reason for the change was realising that there is nothing about humans that makes us intrinsically better than other animals. Of course, we have all manner of bells and whistles granted us by evolution that make us more advanced mentally, but unless you want to invoke the concept of a soul, or some kind of spirituality, there's nothing you can really point to in humans that isn't simply a better-developed version of something you can find elsewhere in the animal kingdom. So I drew the conclusion that humans don't in fact have any kind of automatic authority over other living creatures.

But then it occurred to me that the same principle can be applied to animal testing, which can often be lethal for the animals involved. Going by what I just said, I should stay consistent and support bringing the practice to an end. Trouble is, my gut reaction to that point is that it's ridiculous. Animal testing is vital to medical research which has saved countless lives. Whenever I encounter animal rights fundamentalists like PETA, who would sooner allow lethal diseases to run rampant through the human population than support animal testing, I want to beat them with occasional furniture. Yet by my own reasoning, I've wound up agreeing with them.

So what should I do? The main thing I'm trying to do is avoid contradiction. I can't possibly deny the intrinsic superiority of human beings while cheerful waving animals into a vivisectionist's lab for the good of my own species. But to stubbornly refuse those same animals access to the lab while people die of aids, cancer and hundreds of other diseases seems just as immoral. It seems that I can either support animals dying in laboratories, or humans (possibly including myself) dying in the streets of disease. But if I accept that both types of life are equally valuable, how do I decide who to side with?

What do you folks think? Am I just being too rigid with my principles? Is there an easy way accept both animal welfare and animal testing that I haven't thought of? I suspect this is a problem which has been debated hundreds of times before, but I have to admit, it's got me stumped.

Tags: Animal rights, PETA, animal testing, animal welfare

Views: 244

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on November 1, 2011 at 9:53pm
But you know, other animals eat animals too. It is part of the chain and operates under natural selection and survival. But I understand where you are coming from.
Permalink Reply by ShashankA on November 2, 2011 at 2:15am

As humans we use science and intelligence to make life better for men, women, children and now  even animals and plants. I think we should not withhold kindness to nature for silly reasons like 'always been happening' or 'cycle of nature'. 

One might argue that women's equality with men is not natural: in many species males dominate over females. In humans we don't, which is because we realize we don't have to.

We can stop all suffering to animals, further more we can nearly even stop all the killing of animals, particularly the higher animals. I think like we reject age-old religious laws, we should also reject age-old behavior.

 

And this is not just about animals: if you don't have to beat a child, don't beat it. If you don't have to cut trees, let them grow. You will be later happy when you find that you have avoided unnecessary cruelty.

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on November 2, 2011 at 6:54pm

The comparison is mute. We need animal meat in our diet for optimal amounts of protein and energy unless one really as adamant in changing their diets in drastic ways against their nature. Among our most closely related primate relatives in the bonobos, women are also dominant. We are related to same degree to chimpanzees as to bonobos so that point is mute.

Again - I have also struggled with this because I love animals; but I think at the end of the day, we need to understand that we are simply another animal life form and it does not make us cruel or inhumane to consume meat in our diet.

And I agree, there are laws against killing the higher animals and we as the international community must do more to enforce these laws. Saying this - animal testing is vital to the advancement of science and humanity; therefore, those individuals who are against using primates for scientific purposes, are utterly irrational.

Permalink Reply by leveni on November 2, 2011 at 10:51pm

The comparison is mute. We need animal meat in our diet for optimal amounts of protein and energy unless one really as adamant in changing their diets in drastic ways against their nature. Among our most closely related primate relatives in the bonobos, women are also dominant. We are related to same degree to chimpanzees as to bonobos so that point is mute.

After reading this I looked up the dietary habits of Bonobos and Chimps.

Bonobos are mostly frugivorous. Bonobo Diet.

Chimps are Omniverous. But prefer to eat fruit. Food. Interesting Experiment.

 

So if we are to change our diet to fit that of the Genus Pan, we should start to eat way more fruit and stop eating meat altogether, except for the occasional B12 craving.

 

we need to understand that we are simply another animal life form and it does not make us cruel or inhumane to consume meat in our diet.

If what you have said is true, is there anything wrong with killing other human beings and eating them?

 

animal testing is vital to the advancement of science and humanity

If this is the case, and humans are just another animal life form, shouldn't we just do all our testing on other humans? 

Even if a certain drug works on a primate, this doesn't guarantee it will work on humans. But if we did all the testing of drugs on humans, the end result would be guaranteed to work on humans. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on November 3, 2011 at 4:30am

We are not cannibals. If we were, we wouldn't have survived for long. It goes against natural selection and evolutionary processes. And the vast majority of animals are not cannibals and do not eat their own young.

And unfortunately, we can't do all our testing on humans; especially in the early stages of research. While there is no guarantee, scientific experiments on animals has enabled us to continue safe research until it is safe enough to test on humans. Without animal research, we would have never come up with the number of vaccines, treatments, and scientific advancements and breakthroughs we have had both in the medical and psychological arenas.

Permalink Reply by alexa penzner on November 3, 2011 at 8:12am
sassan - there really were tribes that were cannibals - yuck.  one tribe in the Indonesian area (mid 1900's) was almost decimated because they were eating the brains of another tribe which were infected.
Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on November 3, 2011 at 8:13pm
I know. :) But they didn't survive or have the chances or surviving due to evolutionary processes. Cannibalism is against human nature.
Permalink Reply by alexa penzner on November 3, 2011 at 8:12am
yeah, then the humans would suffer and die instead - what humans would you pick? poor people, mentally deficient people, criminals?  maybe you'd rather die of polio or TB? what matters is how the animals are treated and taken care of.  doing the same experiments over and over when they are already proven is totally cruel. by the way, a mouse killed by a cat or an elk killed by wolves suffer incredibly more than when being put to sleep by a drug. for once, i agree with Sassan K.
Permalink Reply by leveni on November 3, 2011 at 9:43am

Hi Alexa,

How are things?

 

My example of using humans for experiments is based on Sassans logic. And that is, humans are just animals anyway. If that is the case what is the difference between using humans for experiments and using animals for experiments.

 

Alexa, do you think we are just animals? We are animals, yes, but not just any ordinary animal. We have amazing brains, our brains allow us to do things that no other animal can do. We have an amazing world of science and technology, that science and technology makes us more advanced than any other species on the planet. These other species have no interest in our science nor our technology, so can you explain to me why animals should have to suffer for something they have no interest in?

 

 

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Rob van Senten on November 3, 2011 at 10:05am

"can you explain to me why animals should have to suffer for something they have no interest in?"

 

Simply said, because we as humans assign importance to animals and humans based upon our own perception of the world and our own subjective interpretations.

 

We cause suffering and hurt because it makes us feel better or live our lives better. Of course this is all subjective, so where you draw the line might be different from the next person. 

Permalink Reply by leveni on November 3, 2011 at 4:04pm

Hey Rob,

I can only agree with you.

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on November 3, 2011 at 8:14pm

We are animals - but we are higher ordered animals. Human lives are more worthy than animal lives. The priority for human life is always precedent to animal life.

Again - I consider myself an animal rights advocate. I am simply not an extremist and I understand the value to scientific testing and the progress of science and humanity.

RSS

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service