It most definitely does, because you're changing the action: it's not infecting a living creature with a deadly disease for research purposes. It's infecting a living creature with a deadly disease in a sincere, good-faith effort to save human lives and spare humans from pain and suffering. That is not cruel: it's humane. We're talking consequentialist vs. deontological ethics.
Interesting discussion, but I really didn't get from that article that the testing was cruel simply because they were being tested on, rather they were just subject to worse conditions.
Its humane to humans, and cruel to the animals being tested. Whether such cruelty is justified is another matter. Maybe at some point in history, it would have been perceived as "humane" to do deadly testing on criminals for the general welfare of non-criminals. Yeah, that's a "humane" act for the people its benefiting, and quite obviously cruelty in regards to the criminals. I don't see why I should change the definition of cruelty when talking about non-human species. Am I missing such a qualification in the dictionary?
Unlike humans, animals are hunted in the food chain. They get captured, killed, and eaten. Sometimes by humans, sometimes by other animal species. Think of it that way. If you can justify hunting animals for food, then you can justify hunting animals and using them for research. They both die in the end.
Can't you guys just make an "animal testing" thread in the D&D and leave this thread for other people to be happy for the chimps?
