·
Does the infliction of pain become less
cruel if it is done for a cause that is essential to survival?
·
Can advances in science occur without
taking the occasional risk?
·
Is cruelty to animals a fair exchange
for the alleviation of human suffering?
Is cruelty to animals a fair
exchange for the alleviation of human suffering? I would sacrifice a house cat
in a heartbeat if it led to the discovery of the cure for cancer or AIDS. I
guess that heartbeat comes from the ones that are not beating anymore due to
either epidemic. Maybe I am heartless and insensitive. Perhaps I think that
risks should occasionally be taken to break beyond boundaries and reach a
greater good. I am not really sure. Mostly I think it depends on the situation.
I think that in the case of vivisection, while I admit that alternative, less
painful methods should be used when available and applicable, a necessity arises
in some cases. While I don’t think that these methods should be used on animals
that are at risk of endangerment, I can see breeding and using lab rats as a
practice that is not totally morally wrong. Where would advances in science be
if research was constantly being stopped because someone disagreed with it? I
wonder what other ways there are to learn about anatomy without studying… well…
the anatomy of things not visible under normal circumstances.
I guess can see the other side of
the argument which states that it is cruelty towards other living beings, but
that is a part of nature. Are we going to make the lion stop eating its prey
because emotional distress and physical pain is experienced by the hunted? It
is true that the line has to be drawn somewhere in the middle to determine what
makes it okay and what makes it cruelty towards another living thing. This one,
however, puts me on the fence as to whether it is ethical behavior. On one hand
there is exploitation of the existence of another living creature, on the
other, this exploitation could very well be essential to the survival of
another.
Hello, I like your post very much. As you said, we cannot just stop any researches because someone disagree with it. There is always a cost to achieve a goal. Some things just happen naturally. While it's certainly wrong to use someone's lost pet or endangered species for tests, specially bred rats should be a less harmful choice, needless to say the number of people potentially benefit from these researches. I'm not sure if anti-vivisectionists would still hold their opinion if someday their loved ones are dying because of a disease they refused to be studied.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with you. If using the practice of vivisection we are able to find the cure to cancer, I would have to support it. After all, seeing people go through the pains of cancer is heartbreaking. However, the hundreds or millions of animals sacrificed to find the cure all builds up. If I were to know how many exact number of animals used to find the solution, I may be not as strong in my support for vivisection. This is why I tend to not want to know the facts since my point of view is constantly changed.
ReplyDelete(Sorry for the late post. I was super busy the past 2 days.)
I don not think your opinion makes you heartless or insensitive, I too agree with you, when you said that you would sacrifice a cat for a cure for cancer or AIDS. Scientist who use animals for testing use specific animals because they resemble humans. The majority of people would not sign up to be tested on by scientist, so they have to test on animals. I also agree that if the animal is in danger of being extinct then they should stop. If they find sure ways to find cures without using animals, I would be okay with it, or if people agree to be tested on too.
ReplyDelete