Animal Experimentation? Rights?

[rmcrobertson]

1. What kind of dog?

2. Freud was not a determinist in any fashion, least of all in terms of biological determinism. Nor is it with Freud that such ideas originate.

3. The necessary taking of life isn't the moral issue.

 

[Corporal Hicks]

1. What kind of dog?

2. Freud was not a determinist in any fashion, least of all in terms of biological determinism. Nor is it with Freud that such ideas originate.

3. The necessary taking of life isn't the moral issue.

Actually, I think your find that Freud was almost a complete determinst. He believed that free will, was an illusion. At least according to my pyschology lesson today on reductionism.

Regards

 

[rmcrobertson]

If that's really what they taught you, your lesson was inaccurate.

It's common, these days, for psych classes to grossly misrepresent Freud, getting both his ideas and his wacky mistakes wrong.

But to go back to the theme here, Freud would probably say something to the effect that we might want to really think about the role that sadism, and the fantasy of perfect control of the natural world, play in our institutionalization of animal testing.

 

[raedyn]

I have worked for a medical testing device manufacturer and I can tell you that alot of the testing on animals is GOVERNMENT/FDA required. We could do away with alot of these tests through the use of computer modeling, but the government relies on "tried and true" methods of testing. ... <b>We could do away with these tests and dramatically bring down the price of prescription drugs.</b>[Ed. - emphasis added]

Ha! Don't kid yourself. It'd just be bigger profit margins in the pharmaceutical companies' pockets.

/off-topic

 

[OUMoose]

I would kill every rat and mouse on Earth if it meant the cure for cancer. If folks truly think they are on par with animals, perhaps they should go throw themselves in front of hunters bullets and free us all of their silly selves.

I prefer to use the moral dilemma that you could cure cancer, but for whatever reason, you'd have to eviscerate your newbord son/daughter to do it... Could you?

To answer Corporal Hicks, I don't believe we're on par with animals, which also entails that we're above the wholesale slaughter/torture of them. Personally, I say we use another group of animals. Convicts. No-chance-of-parole lifers, or death-row inmates. They've proven they're less than human by some sort of depraved act, and they're kept in cages for their life (just like the lab animals). Solve two problems with one solution! But wait, that would be "cruel and unusual punishment", right? Hmmm... dilemmas...

 

[Corporal Hicks]

If that's really what they taught you, your lesson was inaccurate.

It's common, these days, for psych classes to grossly misrepresent Freud, getting both his ideas and his wacky mistakes wrong.

But to go back to the theme here, Freud would probably say something to the effect that we might want to really think about the role that sadism, and the fantasy of perfect control of the natural world, play in our institutionalization of animal testing.

Ok I'm not having a go, this is what I got taught today lol!

"Freud, 'physic determinism' = events do not occur by chance and are related to unconscious processes (example of biological determinism) and that free will is an illusion. Supported by Skinner (1971) "What we do is dicated by force or punishment!"

Ah, I agree with you on the fantasy part of the idea that he may adopt. The idea that humans think, or at least like to show that they have control over the natural world in which they live in.

How should we judge this? Can we judge it at all? Do we really have control over animals? Is there a reason to be moral?

Kind Regards, please dont take offence rmcrobertson!

CH

 

[Ray]

You're dog and your child are sitting in the street with a truck barreling down on them...which one do you save?

With the way my 16 yr old has been behaving lately, I'd have to think about that one. Lucky for me, he's the last of 5.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Not offended in the least--however, Freud is not a biological determinist, nor is he much like Skinner. Skinner's pretty much a straight-line development from Pavlov's stuff on classical conditioning; with Freud, different people won't even agree on exactly what the stimulus was, let alone what the response would be.

What Freud is, is pessimistic. I quite agree that he'd be all over the fantasy of being Lords of The Earth that's behind a lot of the ways we swagger around the joint.

Do you know the Mark Twain story about the judgment of the animals? the one where Man goes on trial--and the only two animals who will speak up for him are the dog--and the mosquito?

 

[Tgace]

I prefer to use the moral dilemma that you could cure cancer, but for whatever reason, you'd have to eviscerate your newbord son/daughter to do it... Could you?

No..but why are we comparing humans to animals.....again? The point being that I value human live above animal life. Which reminds me of that issue of a few years back where cancer researchers were finding that the bark of a specific tree had cancer curing properties, but to cut them down risked the spotted owl population. If the scientists could say with certainty that those trees could "cure" cancer Id say "bye bye" to the Owls. Countless people (and their families) being spared the anguish of cancer far outweighs the Owl in my book. So my comparison has some realistic merit....

 

[Corporal Hicks]

Not offended in the least--however, Freud is not a biological determinist, nor is he much like Skinner. Skinner's pretty much a straight-line development from Pavlov's stuff on classical conditioning; with Freud, different people won't even agree on exactly what the stimulus was, let alone what the response would be.

LOL :uhyeah: Nice! See what you did there. I think I pretty much agree now with your view on Freud, but I'm going off topic so...

No I dont know the story, think I might look it up!

Cheers!

Regards

 

[Corporal Hicks]

I prefer to use the moral dilemma that you could cure cancer, but for whatever reason, you'd have to eviscerate your newbord son/daughter to do it... Could you?

To answer Corporal Hicks, I don't believe we're on par with animals, which also entails that we're above the wholesale slaughter/torture of them. Personally, I say we use another group of animals. Convicts. No-chance-of-parole lifers, or death-row inmates. They've proven they're less than human by some sort of depraved act, and they're kept in cages for their life (just like the lab animals). Solve two problems with one solution! But wait, that would be "cruel and unusual punishment", right? Hmmm... dilemmas...

As for the first part, weighing it all up, I could not do it, I freely admit that I could not. I have never had a son or daughter, being 17 thats not for a while yet (I hope).
But that is simply a imagined moral dilemma thats been put there for a basis of this kind of arguement, it trys to compare the current situation with this falsified one and some people find it irritating when its done so. The point is, I don't neither does anybody else here (I hope also) have to eviscerate their newborn son or daughter so they can find a cure of cancer. So why use that moral dilemma?
Ok, say for the sake of arguement I did have to. Now tell me, who would suffer pyschologically more....

Myself having to eviscerate my children.
Or a dog having to eviscerate its (which is not possible so lets say somebody else did it and the dog was watching).

Who is going to feel the after effects more? Me or the dog?

This I suppose bringing it back to what somebody else stated earlier about there being a higher state of consiousness within humans. The dog may know at that present moment it has lost something, it doesnt understand why or how, it maybe feels it, but within a couple of days/weeks its forgotten, unless somebody can show a study which disproves it either way?

The moral dilemmas that I was referring to were situations such as:

Your a train operator, the bridge is up and the trains hurtling towards the bridge. You can lower the bridge and definately save the passengers but in doing so you will kill your son who is trapped in the machinery of the bridge. Or you can save your son, and risk killing those on the train when it rides off the bridge. You have five seconds, what do you decide?

I point I'm trying to make is, deal with the situation at hand. Thats the most important factor!

As for the second part. I have to say I totally agree with you!!! But what if I said to you, your son's one of those convicts? Still want to test on him?

No offence meant at all, just trying to debate!
Kind Regards

CH

 

[rmcrobertson]

And when you've sacrificed all of Nature to short-term human desires and needs, when you've chopped down all the trees and whacked out all the owls, what exactly are you planning on doing for an air supply, for water, for food, and for a place to go for a walk that isn't a mall?

It's a false dichotomy. We aren't separate from the natural world, and we don't have to trash the joint and kill everything in it just to stay alive. Nor do we have to pretend to be holier-than-thou, and ignore the fact that we live off nature at every level.

 

[Corporal Hicks]

And when you've sacrificed all of Nature to short-term human desires and needs, when you've chopped down all the trees and whacked out all the owls, what exactly are you planning on doing for an air supply, for water, for food, and for a place to go for a walk that isn't a mall?

It's a false dichotomy. We aren't separate from the natural world, and we don't have to trash the joint and kill everything in it just to stay alive. Nor do we have to pretend to be holier-than-thou, and ignore the fact that we live off nature at every level.

Yeah I'll second that! :lookie: :drinkbeer

 

[Tgace]

I dont consider the possibility of things like curing cancer "short term human needs"...killing animals to test the latest eye make-up, thats a whole different story. Wantonly killing for trivial needs is wrong, however not exploring a possible cure to cancer because it may put a localized species of Owl at risk is wrong IMO. One thing that sets us apart from animals is that we can weigh reward vs. risk...

 

[Adept]

And when you've sacrificed all of Nature to short-term human desires and needs, when you've chopped down all the trees and whacked out all the owls, what exactly are you planning on doing for an air supply, for water, for food, and for a place to go for a walk that isn't a mall?

It's a false dichotomy. We aren't separate from the natural world, and we don't have to trash the joint and kill everything in it just to stay alive. Nor do we have to pretend to be holier-than-thou, and ignore the fact that we live off nature at every level.

Like I said earlier, it's natural selection at work. If though our greed, we make the planet uninhabitable for us, then we die. And it's our own fault. And maybe in a few hundred million years we'll have a new 'top-dog' race which isn't so self centered.

Or maybe our ingenuity will win through, and we'll develop oxygen manufacturing processes, etc, and survive anyway.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Considering that the way we've polluted is the direct cause of a great deal of cancer, perhaps it doesn't altogether make sense to argue that because we've caused cancer rates to go up and up by trashing the planet this somehow justifies more trashing of the planet.

 

[Adept]

Considering that the way we've polluted is the direct cause of a great deal of cancer, perhaps it doesn't altogether make sense to argue that because we've caused cancer rates to go up and up by trashing the planet this somehow justifies more trashing of the planet.

Justification will always be relative.

 

[Tgace]

Yeah! Let all those people die of cancer! They had it coming anyway. You reap what ya sow! **** em! :shrug:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Or, we could try a rational point--like dealing with the fact that there's a circular logic involved in saying that we have to sacrifice animals to cure diseases that are, in part, caused by our cheerful willingness to sacrifice animals and the rest of the natural world we inhabit.

Or, we could try looking at reality, and noting that here, on this planet, the waste and stupidity upon which we have built a lot of our lives and our economy is precisely what's making us sick.

Or, we could try at least taking an clear look at what we're doing with medical research, and having a serious discussion of the ethics, economics and needs involved.

As opposed to reciting shibboleths and slogans, and refusing to look at reality or consider the implications and effects of our actions in a meaningful fashion.

 

[arnisador]

Animal sacrifice causes cancer?

Sorry, cancer is caused by having DNA. Environmental triggers make it come sooner, but everyone would die of cancer if they lived long enough. Errors happen.

Look, a serious discussion of health care economics isn't on the horizon, but medical advances are. It's survival. You seem to think we're a "guilty species" but it isn't species that struggle to survive--just individuals. And curing cancer helps individuals.