Why human testing is morally right
Following on from my previous article advocating drugs testing on humans, I have found two things: buying and selling kidneys is legal in Iran (thanks Steve); a company is already trialling drugs on humans, in India (thanks Suvir).
There have been previous calls in Britain to consider legalising organ selling, specially since a huge black market already exists.
While a legal trade in organs seems eventually inevitable, even ethical, I’m going all the way. I want the right to buy a human body to test drugs on in the UK. But first…
Yesterday, Scribbles said:
I would also say though that the ordinary animal welfare organisations that have long campaigned against animal experimentation are partly to blame for this new front on which they now need to fight. They have never condemned the animal rights extremists as loudly and as passionately as they should have done, mostly I should imagine because until now the extremist tactics have worked.
Guilty as charged. I’ll stop my monthly direct-debit to the ALF tomorrow (I kid!). The ALF and their ilk are bringing the animal rights movement into disrepute, I’ll definitely agree with that.
Scribbles adds that “…by allowing the thugs their way for so long much public support has been handed on a golden plate to Pro-Test, which was an organisation just waiting to happen.” – again I agree. The backlash was inevitable and the animal-rights movements needs to wisen up to that.
So why then advocate legalising experimentation on humans?
Chris Dillow at Stumbling and Mumbling:
Many supporters of Pro-Test, I guess, believe humans have a right not to be experimented upon. Why don’t animals have this right? What’s the difference between animals and humans?Some of the (implicit) arguments here look a lot like some defences of slavery: they are mere brutes, without our delicate sensibilities. And how can things that look and behave so different from us have the same rights we do?
….
A better line of argument is that rights arise from some type of implicit social contract … However, if rights originate in a social contract, then surely serious or persistent criminals – by breaking that contract – lose their rights.
The social contract is at the heart of the matter. It says animals are dumber than us, therefore we can do what we like with them.
I concur with Chris, but have another view on this.
In the last thirty years or so we have moved from simple exploitation of animals (milking a cow, rising a horse, hunting with a dog) to industrial exploitation. Animals are now soul-less commodities that should not pretend to have feelings, relationships or offspring – let alone lives.
Society does not want to confront this unwritten social contract – most people would balk at the way animals are treated if it happened in front of their eyes. So they let factories do the work in sanitised conditions.
Only we understands this contract – how abhorrent free-market exploitation of the completely powerless is – can we learn to treat them as something that has life.
And the only way to do that is to facilitate testing on humans. So I’m all for it.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Civil liberties, Environmentalism, Science
Chris Dillow, who’s measured and calm voice blog is always good to read, is however, over-stating the case when he says “What’s the difference between animals and humans?”. There is a difference – animals don’t destroy each other in political and religious wars, print books, use computers etc. They are not our slaves insofar as their rights cannot be mapped directly to human rights – which is what the ALF would have us do. However, Chris Dillow’s sentiment is wholly correct. At the very least, Man has a duty to protect the rights of animals which should be ratified in the same way as the International Bill of Human Rights. An International Bill of Animal Rights anyone?
Sunny is starting to scare me.
=>”And the only way to do that is to facilitate testing on humans. So I’m all for it.”
Along with the issues that have already been stated by some commenters on another thread, a potential problem with this is that some ‘enterprising’ organisations could start ‘outsourcing’ human experimentation. If they can’t obtain human test subjects from their own countries, they’ll go to so-called “Third World” nations where there are already large numbers of poverty-stricken people who would resort to volunteering for such practices, especially if the money offered is significantly more than they could otherwise earn in their own countries.
In fact, it could get even worse when you consider the rampant corruption prevalent in many such places — vulnerable people could end up forced into ‘volunteering’ by criminals who subsequently get a ‘cut’ of their salaries.
Sid,
I agree that Man has a duty to treat animals in a reasonably humane manner, but I baulk at saying they have ‘rights’.
On the previous thread, Suvir provided a link to show the extent to which outsourcing has already gone;
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.03/indiadrug.html
And the article shows that exactly those issues which several of us have identified are happening as expected.
Personally I hope (really hope) that Sunny’s argument is an elaborate rhetorical ploy, to produce moral indignation so that he can redirect it at abuses of animals. In other words, he is seeking better treatment of animals rather than worse treatment of humans.
Because otherwise, be afraid, Jay, be very afraid.
It’s no elaborate rhetorical ploy at all. If testing is absolutely necessary, then it should be on humans rather than on animals.
It has already started, as that article shows. Consider this. If tomorrow India fully legalised this practice, and Indian pharmaceutical companies started testing products on their own citizens, then within a few decades Indian pharma companies would get ahead of their western rivals, providing they invest enough money. Then the western companies would be either clamouring to experiment on Indian people, or lobby their govt to ease legislation on the issue. It will happen either way.
As a smart person once said – there is no morally right or wrong, there is only the question of taxing it (not sure who said that… and if no one did, then I’m staking my claim to this quote
).
Legalise prostitutions, and legalise trading in organs. That is my philosophy.
By calling it a rhetorical ploy Don – you’re not getting to the enormity of what I really mean. What this social contract actually means.
Tell me why exactly animals are ok to be experimented on, and not humans? Because they’re less capable? then what about the humans who are born with sever disabilities? By that reasoning we should be ok to test on them?
An International Bill of Animal Rights anyone?
I believe Germany has something like this already.
I’ve just read an email from a reader who wanted to make a few points on this:
1) Human testing and medical trials are already quite widespread. You can even donate your tissue to research when you’re dead.
Excellent! This is what I’m talking about… let’s extend it.
2) The issue isn’t really animal testing or experimentation. Its vegetarianism/veganism. Vegan Outreach (www.veganoutreach.org) in 1999 had some good figures. They said that 40 million animals were used in experiments in the US that year. But that the increase in animals killed for human consumption was 400 million (bringing the figure to
around 9 billion animals). I think the 9 billion figure was worldwide.
The increase in animals for food alone dwarfed the number used in experiments.
Totally agreed, but the problem is that humans are even less likely to give up eating meat for pleasure.
So my solution is once again that the price of meat should reflect the true value – i.e. tighten up legislation on how animals can be transported, fed, housed etc (as living beings, not soul-less commodities), and then watch the price shoot up to its true intrinsic value. Then the consumption of meat will automatically fall.
You oppose testing on rats & mic Sunny? You do realise the VAST majority of animals tested on are rodents?
Quite how one can put the life of a rat over a sentient human being is beyond me….
Here’s some UK stats for 2001
The only thing that is upsetting is the 3,342 primates that were killed in that year. They have the capacity for real emotion, unlike a rodent with it’s pea brain.
jOnz
Can you work the words ‘dhimmi’ and ‘taqiyya’ into your last post on animal testing please, I get confused when you’re not in full apocalyptic mode
Nobody is doing that. Nobody is saying “this life for this life”. What people are saying is that the suffering inflicted upon specific and individual animals cannot be justified by the supposed contribution to cosmetics, medicine, etc.
A further litmus test for the acceptability of animal testing would be “Who will profit from this experiment?” Patients? Medical companies? Suppliers of animals for testing? Shareholders?
“Quite how one can put the life of a rat over a sentient human being is beyond me….”
Rats are also sentient. Not that I’m advocating the inherent danger in exploiting people’s poverty to find human subjects for testing.
But there is a lot of animal testing that is cruel and unnecessary, given the product being tested. Torturing an animal to develop a better shaving lotion or to prove that people who drink more wine gain less fat than those who didn’t seems unnecessary. One professor in university told us horror stories about what experiments some would concoct using animals merely to get federal grant money.
‘Nobody is saying “this life for this life”. ‘
Actually, that is exactly what Sunny is saying;
‘If testing is absolutely necessary, then it should be on humans rather than on animals.’
Not ‘as well as’, which already happens, but ‘instead of’. I have repeatedly pointed out that many experiments require the subject to die during or immediately after the process and asked how that fits in with his ‘voluntary’ scheme, but have had no clear answer. So I’m assuming he’s ok with this aspect.
Let’s be absolutely clear, this is not about testing cosmetics on animals, not about unnecessary testing, not about callous or brutal treatment of test animals. If it were this thread would have been a murmur of agreement. No, as Sunny himself might say, that’s ‘not getting to the enormity of what I really mean.’ we are talking about replacing research animals with people, specifically the poor and homeless. Completely.
I believe that two main objections can be made, and have been by several more or less stunned commentors.
First, it is impractical. There already exist many, many experiments using human subjects but quaint old ethics has traditionally limited these to procedures where the subject is very unlikely to die or suffer long term damage. So it already happens and if some student wants to make a few quid by catching flu and sneezing into a petri dish while swigging the latest hot lemon panacea, that’s fine with most of us.
However, before reaching the point where these drugs can be tested on humans they must first be tested on animals. Just in case they cause the spleen to explode. Regulation in the UK is as tight as it gets anywhere, scienists who carry out animal testing are not doing for fun or from spite. Quite apart from anything else, it’s no joke having your car torched, your family threatened or your deceased relatives disinterred and abused. If a safe alternative to animal testing were available, it would be used.
So let’s say we have a virus. Ebola seems sufficiently scary. And let’s say we have some research into how it is spread among a population. You have three – and only three – choices;
a. Use animals. Who will die.
b. Use humans. Who will die.
c. Don’t do the research.
As far as I can see, Sunny regards only ‘a’ as morally unacceptable. I seriously doubt that he will find a significant number of scientists who feel they can continue in their field under these circumstances. Nor will he find any volunteers. Nor will any civilised society buy into it. If I’m wrong on those counts then I officially despair of the human race.
Also, as someone (Steve?) pointed out, research generally requires that the subjects be healthy. The poor tend not to be.
Second, and this is the part that really took me aback, is Sunny’s repeated insistence the poor are the natural subjects for these experiments, as they are already exploited so ‘let’s do it properly.’ His belief that the pharmaceutical companies can be rusted to decide when a subject is ‘ripe’.
We have already discussed ‘outsourcing’. I have never been to India, much to my regret, so I must rely on Sunny’s expertise here. Do the poor and vulnerable in India have a culture of self-advocacy, a willingness to question authority figures and make free choices or do they tend rather to defer to the powerful? Does there exist poverty so terrible that people will do things the find abhorrent and terrifying to feed there families? Is the administrative infrastructure free of the callous, the corrupt and the coercive? The answers to these questions directly relate to the morallity of ‘outsourcing’.
I made a point earlier which I’m not even going to rephrase;
It is disingenuous to suggest that humane and responsible regulations will be enforced, because the market forces you fetishise will gravitate towards the least expensive, least regulated, least accountable locations. It is what they do. As sure as the sparks fly upwards
Sunny replied;
companies face regulation all the time on various issues, and unless the authorities turn a blind eye on it – they usually follow regulations.
one hell of a big ‘unless’.
On the plus side, I completely agree that;
‘the price of meat should reflect the true value – i.e. tighten up legislation on how animals can be transported, fed, housed etc (as living beings, not soul-less commodities), and then watch the price shoot up to its true intrinsic value. Then the consumption of meat will automatically fall.’
Great idea. Maybe bird flu will see some impact on the assumption that dirt cheap meat is a right. Personally, I get most of my animal protein from game (us rural types, y’know) but I’d far rather have good organic meat twice a week than factory farmed crap twice a day. For ethical, health and taste reasons.
Agree with Don 100%. Well put old chap.
we are talking about replacing research animals with people, specifically the poor and homeless. Completely.
Err, no Don, that’s not what I’m saying. I doubt we’ll be able to replace all testing with humans anyway… there won’t be enough humans volunteering.
I’m saying open up the process so humans can voluntarily submit themselves up for testing. That would be in addition to tightening up legislation on how animals are treated in captivity anyway.
You go on to say:
Regulation in the UK is as tight as it gets anywhere, scienists who carry out animal testing are not doing for fun or from spite. Quite apart from anything else, it’s no joke having your car torched, your family threatened or your deceased relatives disinterred and abused. If a safe alternative to animal testing were available, it would be used.
Actually, its not that tight. There are constantly new cases cited where animals are abused over research. In addition to that, the vast majority of research isn’t purely about life-saving diseases – much of it is related to non life-saving stuff.
And lastly, this rubbish about having your house torched. You’re making out as if the ALF nutters make up the vast majority of animal rights campaigners, or that they’re so widespread that every single scientist in the country is threatened. Neither is the case.
As far as I can see, Sunny regards only ‘a’ as morally unacceptable.
Rubbish. I regard both as morally unacceptable. Because what it comes down to is callously exploiting the poor and needy as pieces of flesh. I’m saying however that to get people to understand the enormity of what we have made animals into – open up research for voluntary tests on humans.
Sunny’s repeated insistence the poor are the natural subjects for these experiments, as they are already exploited so ‘let’s do it properly.
Again – a lot of misreading. I don’t care who offers themselves up for testing… whether it be the poor, rich, students, scientists themselves.
In India… whil we were studying science, I remember being told ‘bravery stories’ of Indian scientists making progress by testing out things on themselves…. sometimes even life-threatening stuff. I don’t know if they were true or not, but there were commonplace. So scientists also sometimes test on themselves. I’m saying – let it happen. Rather like trading organs.
You seem to be reading a malicious intent by me to condemn all poor people to horrible death by some dodgy drug. I assure you my liberal humanist credentials are very much intact
Doesn’t drug testing on humans already happen?
It’s just called a clinical trial.
If you mean testing at the first hurdle… Hmm. You may as well eat a random mushroom you found in the forest. But that’s a risk people take when they volunteer. It may be better than dying of cancer anyways.
However, if people are allowed to risk death in this way, what about euthanasia? If people have the right to almost kill themselves, they have the right to actually kill themselves.
Sunny,
That’s not what you’re saying? This whole debate was sparked by your assertion that the poor and the homeless should be handed over to market forces as experimental subjects for medical science because their putative free-will and supposed informed consent made them more ethically acceptable sacrifices than animals who stood to gain no benefit, either individually or as a species, from the research. Refer back.
Tightness of UK regulations and ‘life-saving stuff’: ok, I’ll be honest; I haven’t done any research. I have no idea what the regulations are. I don’t have two statistics to rub together. I was guessing. Was I wrong? Is the UK low on the list of countries with an ethical policy towards animal testing? You’ve caught me out, I was bluffing.
‘You’re making out as if the ALF nutters make up the vast majority of animal rights campaigners,’
No I am not. Please don’t impute that to me. I am pointing out that possible targeting by extremists is a significant disincentive to gratuitous vivisection.
‘Rubbish. I regard both as morally unacceptable. ‘
There were three choices. Pick one.
‘a lot of misreading’
I have no idea if I have misread you or not. I seriously hope I have.
This whole debate was sparked by your assertion that the poor and the homeless should be handed over to market forces as experimental subjects for medical science because their putative free-will and supposed informed consent made them more ethically acceptable sacrifices than animals who stood to gain no benefit, either individually or as a species, from the research. Refer back.
Lol at handed over. All I’m saying is that companies should be able to offer money to test on people. I believe they want to already, and are kind of doing it already in small instances. Open the flood-gates – make it legal here.
I think the resulting debate, the actual process of it happening would be quite interesting.
And personally, yes its more ethically right that testing is done on humans (voluntarily!) than animals.
You seem to read this as shepherding poor people into their deaths… which sort of explains how I feel about animals being forced to become commodities that can be experimented on at will.
By forcing this debate, I’m trying to get people to understand the enormity of what experimentation on animals actually means… ethically and morally.
Damn, I knew I should have covered the ‘handing over’ phrasing.
Goodnight.
All power to you Sunny for having the balls to open up the debate on animal research in the way you have.
I think for the sake of animal and human we should consider other ways to achieve medical advancement than through animal experimentation.
This piece on humane research is useful for those interested in this subject:
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/campaign/humane/intro.htm
Keep it up Sunny. The world needs people like you!
As I understand it Sunny’s proposal is a form of reductio ad absurdum, he’s hoping that in recoiling from the idea of performing experiments upon (consenting) humans we will rethink our approach to using animals when we realise that the arguments used to justify that (essentially consequentialist ones) make even more sense when applied to humans – so maybe there’s something wrong with the argument. I think that if you do use consequentialist reasoning then the case for allowing people to volunteer themselves for all kinds of experimentation in return for money is very strong, in terms of the benefits both for them and third parties. You could well conclude from this that there’s something deeply problematic about that whole way of thinking about ethical issues.
On the case of organ transplants I think that the case for a market in organs is very strong. One thought to bear in mind is that, given the very high demand for organs for transplant, a likely real world alternative is the use of the death penalty to provide a source of organs – this appears to be happening in China. Larry Niven made this scenario an important part of his “Known Space” series of novels and stories, a bit scary when you can see it starting to come about.
Can I suggest that animal-testing is small-fry? For people who are genuinely concerned about animal welfare, the most important issue should be meat.
The meat-industry is at least as cruel as the animal-experimenters, involves billions and billions more animals, and has none of the concomitant benefits.
On the other hand most people do eat meat, and most people don’t perform experiments on animals. Hence, just as over hunting, we end up looking like a nation (or species) of total hypocrites
A few further points from me:
1. I can understand Sunny’s wish to draw attention the suffering of animals via the analogy of similar testing on humans, but I do not think it is acceptable to sacrifice the lives of poor & desperate people with the aim that the eventual by-product of this course of action will be greater understanding of the horrors animals have to go through. The aspiration is admirable, but in terms of its real-world implementation, the solution is morally unacceptable.
2. Just because someone willingly gives you an opportunity to exploit them, it does not mean that the ethical course of action would be to actually take that opportunity.
3. Theoretically, one way to avoid the dilemma of animal vs human testing would be to use computer simulation modelling techniques, assuming that the technology is advanced enough and there is a sufficient understanding of the intricacies of the various biological systems involved in order for scientists to be able to accurately model the effects of the test scenarios concerned. Such techniques are already used in fields as disparate as (for example) advanced physics and investment banking (risk management etc).
You would cruelly torture and oppress innocent computer programs? They have no say in the matter, were created for the purpose, and already die unmourned by the billion daily in the underbelly of the global economy, just so some fat westerner can watch porn.
virtual rights now!
soru
Jai:
The aspiration is admirable, but in terms of its real-world implementation, the solution is morally unacceptable.
Why exactly? You could say 200 years ago colonialists said the same about people of other races such as blacks.
Just because someone willingly gives you an opportunity to exploit them, it does not mean that the ethical course of action would be to actually take that opportunity.
Happens all the time. Just take a job at Walmart for example.
Theoretically, one way to avoid the dilemma of animal vs human testing would be to use computer simulation modelling techniques, assuming that the technology is advanced enough
It isn’t – granted that in a discussion on HP someone said this to me, and I’ll take their word for it. But you find testing on humans morally abhorrent – I find testing on animals morally repugnant.
Eventually, history will take my side… that much I’m sure about. Humanity might be generally screwing up but slowly and surely it is improving in terms of respecting life.
Larry:
Can I suggest that animal-testing is small-fry? For people who are genuinely concerned about animal welfare, the most important issue should be meat.
I agree. I’m vegetarian but I can’t force others to be. However I would like meat to reflect its true cost, as I said above
As I understand it Sunny’s proposal is a form of reductio ad absurdum
Steve – that is only assuming that the end conclusion is an absurd one. My conclusion is that humans and animals are equal – but rather that all sort of intelligent life should be respected.
a likely real world alternative is the use of the death penalty to provide a source of organs – this appears to be happening in China
Though I see people screaming blue-murder about this, I agree. Chris Dillow in his piece mentions the fact that criminals break the social contract and therefore get tested on. I think that’s a line of thinking I may agree with.
Scribbles – thanks
the same goes for you.
‘A Chinese cosmetics company is using skin harvested from the corpses of executed convicts to develop beauty products for sale in Europe, an investigation by the Guardian has discovered.
Agents for the firm have told would-be customers it is developing collagen for lip and wrinkle treatments from skin taken from prisoners after they have been shot. The agents say some of the company’s products have been exported to the UK, and that the use of skin from condemned convicts is “traditional” and nothing to “make such a big fuss about”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1568622,00.html
And;
‘Speaking before the subcommittee, Wang described the procedures, saying that often group executions were organized to facilitate the demand for organ transplants.
“It is with deep regret and remorse that I stand here today testifying against the practices of organ and tissue sales from death row prisoners,” he said.
“My work required me to remove the skin and corneas from the corpses of over one hundred prisoners, and on a couple of occasions, victims of intentionally botched executions.”
Wang said that prisoners were given blood tests to determine their compatibility with donor seekers.
He said his conscience was tortured after an incident in October 1995 when he was ordered to remove skin from a prisoner still alive.
The prisoner — sentenced to death for robbery and murder — was administered an anti-blood clotting agent and then shot.
Wang said the prisoner did not die immediately and was taken into the back of an ambulance where urologists removed his kidneys.
Wang and other surgeons then harvested the prisoner’s skin before putting the body — still not dead — in a plastic bag then into a truck.’
http://www.buyhard.fsnet.co.uk/harvesting_and_sale_of_body_parts.htm
Wtf, they broke the social contract. Probably.
Not screaming blue murder, Sunny. Just pointing the real world results of your philosophical musings.
Don – this is what Chris Dillow says:
The point of this exercise is to determine what exactly you think gives us the right to violate the living rights of other beings.
Is it a social contract, a measure of intelligence, a belief that humans have an unalienable right to kill and do whatever they want with other species and nature – what exactly?
By understanding how you come to the understanding that you do, I can poke holes in your philosophy
As a species we treat other species badly. I admit that. I try to take a reasonably ethical stance, as befits a good middle class liberal, on matters of farming and pharmaceuticals. But if you seek equity betweeen human and animal life, you will find the value of human life being lowered, not animal raised.
I don’t really have a philosophy to pick holes in, Sunny. I’m playing this by ear. I am just very uncomfortable with;
a likely real world alternative is the use of the death penalty to provide a source of organs – this appears to be happening in China
Though I see people screaming blue-murder about this, I agree. Chris Dillow in his piece mentions the fact that criminals break the social contract and therefore get tested on. I think that’s a line of thinking I may agree with.
Please respond to my links to what is already happening in China, and suggest to what extent one must break the social contract in China to be considered ‘ripe’ for harvesting. Actally, don’t bother. Market forces will take care of it.
‘The point of this exercise is to determine what exactly you think gives us the right to violate the living rights of other beings.’
Oh, good. An easy question. Because we are living beings, and all living beings exist on violating the etc. What makes us special is that we are capable of compassion towards those not of our species, that we are aware that others are concious beings, that we care enough to have this debate.
I don’t have a problem with a debate about the ethics of animal experimentation, but do you seriously want to ‘open the floodgates’ on a market driven free for all on human experimentation, given the reality?
What makes us special is that we are capable of compassion towards those not of our species, that we are aware that others are concious beings, that we care enough to have this debate.
Erm, actually no Don. Animals are also perfectly capable of having compassion for their own species and that of others. There are plenty of anecdotes demonstrating this. I believe some animals have even mated across species.
How do you also know they are not concious of their own existence? We care enough to having this debate means what? We can pat ourselves on our backs? When a dog rescues a kid from a fire from example, you think that dig is not doing it out of compassion?
Arif mentions another point in my previous article on this issue – I assume then also that is a species much more powerful and intelligent and self-aware than us were to arise and want us for testing – you would submit? After all, that is your thinking…
The social contract line of argument is the strongest one that pro-animal testers have, so it makes sense for Sunny to focus on this.
I think its main strength is that it allows pro-testers to solve ethical problems in an intuitively acceptable way:
- it justifies giving human beings more rights and duties than animals.
- it solves the hypothetical problem of what happens to human rights in the face of a more intelligent/”compassionate” or whatever species wanted to use us for their testing. We can continue to insist on our rights and duties as part of a moral community.
- it means that humans can excuse their less intelligent/powerful or whatever members from being used for medical research, by insisting they have rights as members of a community, even if they haven’t greater mental/social whatever faculties than individual members of other species which we do allow experiments on.
The problems it is weaker on, are then how we can regulate conflicts between different human communities.
- On a secular level, there is nothing to stop humans abusing other human beings to an infinite extent if they do not accept them as part of the same social contract (eg of nation). Slavery among humans would be acceptable.
- Contracts need not be egalitarian in nature even within a community. We could even have a society with a free market in human testing under the social contract philosophy (the point Sunny is making).
I think Don makes the issues clearest when offering three options for how to deal with Ebola. The social contract he might be promoting could be something like humans will do all they can, including torturing animals and excluding torturing humans, to avoid painful human catastrophes. And it seems quite appealing.
But the basis of the appeal is partly moral and partly selfish. It sets up a principle which happens to put us in a privileged situation and allows us to try to defend the privilege. It is more attractive to a liberal mind if it implicitly assumes that there is a universal social contract among human beings, and not just a number of contracts among different tribes or nations, all of which are entitled to torture others to gain their ends.
I believe the attraction would be less if we didn’t feel it allowed us to effectively fight wars we expect to win. If we felt we or those we care for would ever be on the losing side of the principle, it would seem less attractive.
People who care more for other animals than humans also put contractarians in a difficult position. If we say that we do not experiment on mentally damaged humans because there is a social contract entered into by people who care about mentally damaged humans, then we also have to avoid experimenting on any animals that human members of society have strong feelings for. I guess a contractarian can argue that this would be an internal argument about the contents of the social contract which can change over time. And in reality I think this best describes how animal testing might get outlawed in the real world.
So rather than arguing that the social contract should be altered to allow activities which are currently banned for seemingly sentimental reasons, perhaps, Sunny you could be arguing to alter the social contract to ban activities (on sentimental grounds) which are currently undertaken without conscience.
I understand the shock value, Sunny, but you never know how seriously your arguments might be taken, justifying ever increasing human and animal exploitation.
Arif,
Thanks for a very thoughtful analysis. I will consider the points you raised.
Sunny,
No, I wouldn’t submit to being experimented on by aliens. Although once, when very, very drunk, I may have submitted to an anal probe from;
http://www.cinemas-online.co.uk/films/species/1.jpg
The memory is hazy.
Really, I don’t see how I have suggested that anyone or anything was morally obliged to submit to anything. I have scarcely been a flag waver for vivisection here, I would like to see it reduced. regulated and – ideally – superceded by technology. I certainly don’t want it extended to us.
Now I am off to consider my position on the social contract.
I understand the shock value, Sunny, but you never know how seriously your arguments might be taken, justifying ever increasing human and animal exploitation.
Heh. As ever Arif, you are my conscience mate.
Any thoughts on yesterdays/todays events sunny?
Apparently some of them were Asian too, see sepiamutiny
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003150.html