: I think it is wrong to experiment on animals, regardless of the reason. Experimenting for cosmetic purposes is bizarre and sick. While experimenting for medicinal purposes may SEEM more normal, I feel it is as unwarranted as the other. It presupposes two assumptions I do not agree with: 1) That humans are meant to defeat death and that disease is not natural, and 2) That animals are tools to be exploited by humans. This arrogance is unforgiveable and it nauseates me. Thank you for asking.Much as I respect your opinion, I can't agree with it. Your viewpoint derives from the principle that no "exploitation" or killing of animals is justified. I respecty thsi position but I think it's wrong. teh fact is, we cannot refrain from killing animals, whatever we do. Life is an interspecific struggle, a war. When we build a mosquito net around our homes, we are killing mosquitos (indirectly) by depriving them of food. By cultivating land to grow food crops, we are destroying the habitats and thus, teh lives of countless forest animals. The other animals out there are competing with us for finite resources. Either they win or we win.
I understand, the concept of "life is a struggle" is certainly not to be applied to relationships among humans, that leads right into disgusting Social darwinism. But to draw an analogy between racial oppression and a species-centric viewoint is, I think, false. For teh following reason. You, I, and any other human being ahve a very special bond; conceivably, we could all interbreed some day. You and a cow are never going to interbreed. You can undertsand what I am thinking and feeling, you can't with the cow. Hence, I think it is reasonable to say that your ties to humanity are of a different order tahn your ties to other animals.
Race is an utterly SUBJECTIVE classification, so is "genus", "class", etc. the species is teh only OBJECTIVE class. Species distinctions mean something. In other words, the only objectivbe bond taht we see in anture is the bond that ties our speceis togthr. tehrefore, killing fellow humans who don't deserve it is always wrong. Whereas, if you tried to say "Killing white people is wrong", that statement would be false because 'white people" is not a real category, but a mental contruct. Species, however, are NOT a mental construct./ But when you go beyond the species, you get back to the realm of menatl contructs again. hence, I think teh only consistent rule we can give ourselves is to owe loyalty to our fellow humans- not to races (because they are subjective classifications), family (another semi-subjective- whjere do you draw the line), Mammals (why stop there?), or to Life in general (impossible, as I said above.)
Obviously, unnecessary cruelty to animals is wrong. And even though i eat meat (not pigs or cows) I'm not fool enough to deny that vegetarianism is, ceteris paribus, a morally superior choice to non-vegetarianism. (Note, I said morally superior, not biologically superior- you can be quite healthy on either a vegetarian or a non-veg diet.)But I think that tehre are no absolutes here, it's a matter of degree. you may kill fewer animals than me, but you can't escape the fact that you do still kill animals.
As for medical experiments, as I said, loyalty to our species comes first. Between the life of a chimpanzee and the life of a human, I'll take the latter. Of course I think taht birth control and population control are excellent ideas, but this si something else entirely. People who are already sick need these medicines.
if you can honestly answer "No" to the question "Would you not try to save yourself from sudden death tomorrow, if you knew there was a way to do it?" - well, the, all i can say is that you're a better man than me.
None.
