rmcrobertson said:
Again, I feel it's necessary to point out that as human beings, we don't have to be limited by our biology. Unless, of course, we continue to demonstrate the kind of contempt for everything else that all too much of animal testing displays.
I'd think it wouldn't be that difficult to construct a moral measure for such tests--one on which, say, heart surgery would rate fairly high, and testing lipstick and hair gel would rate fairly low.
I didn't happen to be the one who used the term, 'superior species," or, 'speciesism," and that doesn't happen to be the way I talk or write. However, I'm not sure how else to describe claims that well, we're just on top of the food chain, or well, it's just biology....no, it's a choice we make, and often one we do not have to.
I'd suggest too that a lot of our sloppy treatment of our air, water and food supply isn't real smart--if we want to really talk about being bound to biolody.
You keep mixing your causes. Protecting my water supply so I won't get sick, and my children will have a healthy planet is good, because it benefits me. Conducting experimentation on animals to make my life better ALSO benefits me. Again, the two are not even closely related. Being bound by biology isn't the issue, either. Making logical decisions that benefit the human race, however, is. If you want to talk about bound by biology, lets talk about being biologically bound to a misplaced empathetic response toward animals that is built on nothing more than an evolutionary response to protect OUR young. That's truly being bound by biology.
Corporal Hicks said:
The only problem I could see with that arguement, is somebody might say: Says who? Who says great apes or humans are more higher on a scale than rats and mice? Since the human population completely outbalances other species shouldnt we be getting rid of our own?
Taken as red......I totally agree with you
Any animal that decides that it's own species is worth LESS than other species is maladaptive. Any animal that believes it's own species is not worth MORE than other species is maladaptive. As a survival trait, believing that the lives of other species is as valuable as the life of your own is a genetic dead end. I am a human, and as such, I believe humans are more valuable than other species. To say otherwise would be to be to follow an absurd logic that has no basis in reality. If I were a kangaroo, I would be expected to help ensure the survival of my species. To do other than what is in our nature as a species is silliness in the extreme. Any philosophical frame work that spreads this notion is parasitical in my view.
I think what needs to be examined is the source of this bizarre notion that has brought us to the point where some in our species believe that humans are some sort of blight. There had to be a jumping off point, philosophically, that has lead to this. That would be an interesting topic. Perhaps it's nothing but Nietzsche's slave morality taken to an ultimate extreme, or it's simply empathy and anthropomorphism gone astray. Perhaps it's the effect of too many Walt Disney movies.
I had a theory that it is simply misplaced parental emotion. Put simply, human beings, along with all mammals, have live young. There is, naturally, an attachment to young that protects them from our impulses and makes them valuable and bonded TOO us. Otherwise, we would kill them when they start screaming in the middle of the night.
So, some trait of a baby triggers an emotional, empathetic, protective response in us that protects the baby and causes us to invest time protecting and nurturing it. We can call this trait of babies "Cuteness". Females, being those mammals who have offspring and are the primary earlier care givers, would be expected to be the sex most likely to be responsive to "cuteness". Males, somewhat less so.
This view of "cuteness" also gets projected on to animals that have traits similar to babies. The fact that we respond to the offspring of most mammals with a similar adortation that we do small children is very telling. At any rate, this displaced "cuteness" response has lead to the displaced empathy toward all animals that has lead many to embrace a philosophical mother protectiveness to any "cute" animals, and finally, all animals.
This is probably why women, by and large, were the first to begin the animal rights movement. Though, more sensitive men also are subject to this "Cuteness" response. That is why it was the cute animals (remember baby seals) that were the first to get protected. However, as the philosophy began to develop, it spread to protecting MOST animals. This, because cognitive dissonance compels us to be consistent in our thinking. If we decide to protect SOME animals (because they are cute), why are not all animals deserving of protection. So, those who protected the cute animals, finally had protect ALL animals to alleviate this cognitive dissonance.
As such, misplaced maternal instinct is not a logical argument against medical research.
