- Multinationals -

Moral vs. Scientific

In Reply to: drug lobby likes the lame animal rights slogans. posted by j.citizen on November 02, 1998 at 13:46:49:

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments regarding the scientific validity of animal testing. I have read many of your posts and I am glad you have posted them, since I think everyone should be made aware of these things. I also initially found them eye-opening, and now find them useful as tools with which to argue. BUT, I never once stated in my post that I thought the other person's scientific assumptions were valid. (I even figured you would be there to take up the other half of the argument, and am glad you did, since you know more than I do.)

For me, though, arguing based on the scientific assumptions is a dangerous thing, since it can and does fall short, in certain cases. For me, the moral assumptions made are at the root of everything, and precede the scientific assumptions. In other words, IF there were tests on animals that could be performed and could provide reasonably reliable scientific knowledge, I would STILL argue that animal testing is wrong. I prefer not having to fall back to the moral argument, but make my stand there to begin with, since it is what I feel most strongly about. (And, I am convinced, the moral assumptions made by humans are far more deeply rooted than any scientific ones.)

So, I'm glad there are people knowledgeable enough to argue the scientific implications of animal research. I'll back 'em up when I can, but my main target is the moral side, and will remain so.

Follow Ups:

None.