What if hooking your scrotum to car battery would some how cure cancer for everyone? Would you be OK with that? What about about testing some vaccine on some poor child in Africa is that acceptable? Most likely they will die anyway. Or how bout infecting r****ded folks with STDs. They are too dumb to know any better right? Obviously if we can find the cure millions of people and few 100 are hurt isn't that acceptable. Man is the top of food chain, but just 70 years ago we had a guy claiming some humans were subhuman. We had people experimenting on other people. The strong preying on weak with justification is just asking for trouble.
Another red herring. Human life does not equal animal life. In any way shape or form. My only exclusion would be murderers, if you take a human life then your life is now in the hands of scientists.
Would it be wrong for a far more advanced species with intelligence and civilization far surpassing our own to enslave uncivilized, primitive humans?
If they are indeed another species that is far more advanced, then your discussion is moot and their discussion is what matters. Unless you're named Ceasar...
You're just making the same point over and over again and just wording it differently. Do I need to define civilization again...?
OH the irony and the hypocrites and they all end up taking the medications that been tested on animals.
I do agree with SHOULD.I say would because I do not have TOO much confidence in beings acting on pure humility and benevolence. Humans though they show signs of being empathetic to certain situations UNLIKE others animals, they've also shown they can't even exempt THEMSELVES from their own inhumane treatment on WIDESPREAD levels. If "sentience" in other species is built in similar form that humans possess...its no wonder that Stephen Hawking cautions us against interacting with extra-terrestrial beings lol
Humans are civilized. Animals are not. A super advanced species can still present itself, and we'd still be a civilization. We have all the variables that amount to us being civilized. Animals do not. Do you not understand that? Being a lesser species doesn't necessarily make us uncivilized. Its a false correlation.
I thought it was clear that I'm referring to the human species tens of thousands of years ago. None of your criteria for civilization were met. Therefore, by your own argument, they would be justified in treating us (or rather, us 40,000 years ago) as they wish to advance their own welfare.
Cant you test animals without being cruel? I'm pretty sure these monkeys could have got a bit better living conditions.
If you're appealing to "its a dog eat dog world" as the basis of your argument, then I guess you're not so different from other animals after all. Also, "dog eat dog world" could just as well justify cruelty against and enslavement of less advanced humans, which in fact has been a characteristic of our species for the vast majority of our existence.
I beg to differ. They are prisoners that raped/murdered people that I'd gladly recommend for medical testing. I'd shoot them twice before shooting a duck. By george I think I've found something. All prisoners on death row should be available for testing. They are the next best thing to apes.
This is my point. Animal testing doesn't have to be cruel and inhumane. Even if the testing by it's very nature causes pain and suffering, those doing the testing can do their best to alleviate the symptoms and take care of the animals as they recover (or end the suffering if the animal can/will not recover). If these chimps were mistreated wherever they were, then good for whoever saved them. But I don't automatically equate animal testing to cruelty.
Would it qualify as "cruelty" if such testing was done on human captives, or would you use a different word for that?
Can't answer. Animal ≠ Human. Human life is more valuable to me than animal life. Period. Not saying animal life has no value, or that animals should be expendable: every effort should be made to protect and defend the life of animals...but not at the expense of human life. We're not talking about something as frivolous as wearing fur or leather, or animal testing for makeup or shampoo. We're talking about life-saving medicine, which means it's human vs. animal life, and human wins every time in my book (yes, even with prisoners). I could not, in good conscience, look a person who was dying in the eye and say, "We might be able to find a treatment for what it killing you, but we're not going to try." We can and must do everything within the ethical powers of medical science to help that person, and I think animal testing falls within that realm.
The issue was the definition of the word cruelty, not the value of human life vs. non-human life. I know of no special definition of cruelty when applied to humans. You could, if you like, argue that animal cruelty is justified if it could improve our welfare. But it makes no sense to argue that purposely infecting any living creature that can feel pain and feel fear with a deadly disease for research purposes isn't cruelty.
