Animal rights activists–as opposed to animal welfare proponents–universally oppose all medical research no matter how beneficial to human health and well being. Some admit that research provides benefits, but others–like PETA–lie, claiming that because there isn’t a 100% correlation between what happens in an animal and a human, research not only has no benefits, but causes great harm.
That might be true if the drug or technique went directly from the research lab to your doctor’s office. But, of course, it doesn’t. IF a technique or drug passes animal experiments and non animal testing such as on tissue lines or in computer models, it STILL faces years of human subject testing before it makes it to the clinic.
But too often, researchers–perhaps afraid of the vituperation and worse that can come their way from animal rights extremists–don’t discuss the issue in public. Here’s an exception, a very good column written by animal researcher Nancy Haigwood. From her column:
So what drives animal researchers like me? Simply put, our view is that because animal studies lead to improved human health, they should be considered acceptable — provided the studies are highly regulated, the animals are well cared for and suffering is not allowed. This is not a unique view. It’s also shared by the National Institutes of Health, the American Medical Association and the American Veterinary Medical Association.
What have these guiding principles resulted in? Here are advancements from various labs in the past three weeks alone:
–Mouse research has revealed how a genetic mutation may cause Parkinson’s disease.
–Research with ducks has revealed a gene that might potentially shield humans from the flu. –Researchers studying mice have learned that insulin-producing cells can be reborn in the body — a significant finding for those with Type 1 diabetes.
–A blood-flow study in zebrafish has highlighted a possible method for suppressing cancer tumor growth.
–A mouse study has suggested a new theory for the cause of Down syndrome: missing proteins in the brain.
–A rodent study has revealed that the anti-nausea drug Dramamine could be used during a heart attack to prevent heart damage
–And finally, as The Oregonian reported on April 2, monkey studies at Oregon Health & Science University have solved one of the key mysteries about infections resulting from the virus cytomegalovirus, a disease that causes brain damage to 8,000 newborns each year.
Haigwood notes that regardless of non animal testing, at some point researchers need to test ideas and new treatments in a living organism. To protect people, it must be animals first. Not only is such testing required by the Nuremberg Code as an important human rights protection, but that method saves lives.
Read the whole column. It will put fly to the lie of animal rightists that animal research serves no useful human purpose.
April 26th, 2010 | 3:49 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys. Vince Humphreys said: SHS: Why We Need Animal Research http://bit.ly/c1JCed #tcot [...]
April 26th, 2010 | 4:23 pm
[...] Why We Need Animal Research » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog [...]
April 26th, 2010 | 5:19 pm
How did people manage before the animal experimenters and medical research industry relieved everyone’s suffering? How do we manage now, while there is still so much research to be done, so much money to be spent, so many animals that must be experimented on? Oh, look, someone is suffering from some disease, better spend billions of dollars cutting open animals or else it might seem like we don’t care enough.
The fact will soon be apparent that medical research in general is a waste of the planet’s resources, a luxury of the cheap oil century, a surrogate activity that was fun for all the people to drive to important jobs and put on white coats and turn on expensive machines, but that resulted in a less healthy population.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 11:27 am
John Howard: Before animal research, scientists used vulnerable humans. For example, to find a smallpox vaccine, one scientists intentionally infected a boy with cow pox. I trace this all in my book. We need animal research for human safety, to protect human rights, to advance science and medical knowledge. Should we strive to reduce the numbers used? Yes. Should we strive to eliminate it? No, at least not considering the current methods that are available.
April 26th, 2010 | 5:21 pm
[...] original here: Why We Need Animal Research » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog Posted in Animal | Tags: -rights-activists, and-well, Animal, but-others, human-health, [...]
April 26th, 2010 | 5:27 pm
One more thing, what about animal experiments that are not intended to cure diseases, like the experiments that created the mouse Kaguya from two female mice? Most embryos created this way didn’t result in births, but several did, and most of those died prematurely, probably suffering from genetic disorders.
It is very very unlikely that such an experiment could lead to improved human health. It is far more likely that if such a thing were tried in humans, it would produce less healthy children, not improved health. So, those experiments should be stopped right?
April 26th, 2010 | 8:06 pm
I have no doubt that animal research has lead to the saving of human lives. The principal reason, of course, is that humans are so similar to the animals being used. This is one of the ironies of the “human exceptionalism” movement: the assertion that we’re so ontologically distinct (that is, superior to) other animals, and yet, so similar that we rely on them to save our lives.
Certainly, this is a vexing question, and the benefits of animal research cannot be denied. But let me ask a provocative question: would not experimenting on humans, lead to even greater advances, in terms of cures for diseases? It stands to reason that this would. Think of all of the lives we would save by taking a utilitarian approach to human suffering, by sacrificing some humans, in research (clearly, we should treat them humanly, and not cause them unnecessary suffering), for the greater good of other humans? That is, take a small number of, say, condemed killers, humanely experiment on them, and the resultant knowledge could be used, perhaps, to cure some cancers, and just reduce diseases generally, for most of the human population?
Why do we not do this, even though countless human lives would, perhaps be saved (after all, if animal experimentation has saved countless human lives, a fortiori, it’s more reasonable, that using some humans, for experimentation, would ultimately save even more human lives)? The reason is simple, and one that I endorse: humans have rights, and even if greater suffering would result by not using humans, we still adhere to the rights of humans and don’t sacrifice them. Analagously, if animals have rights, we don’t sacrifice them, regardless of the benefits to humans.
April 26th, 2010 | 8:29 pm
[...] Why We Need Animal Research » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog SLAM ONLINE | » Carmelo Anthony: 'I Need Some Help'World News Blog – Yemen attack highlights the need to help its economyPickled Politics » Why environmentalists need to get angry, not …We Need A Government That Isn't Funded By Wall StreetNeed Based Immigration Reform | Room EightRang on draft: Hawks still need dynamic edge rusher | Seattle …Bill Gates: 3 Reasons Why the Feds Need to Fund Energy InnovationBlackBerry OS doesn't need to be rewriten from scratch, RIM saidJersey City Jobs | EVERYBODY HAS A HUNGRY HARP: su960,(1),44;dv2 …Niche Research Made Easy: Finds HOT, HUNGRY and PROFITABLE Niche … View the Contact Powered by Staff [...]
April 26th, 2010 | 10:45 pm
[...] Why We Need Animal Research » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog Boycott animal circuses, urges Malaika Arora – Bollywood WorldThinking of adopting a pet? [...]
April 27th, 2010 | 1:36 am
The case for animal research is even stronger than you say. Animal research is valid and necessary even if it does involve (unavoidable) suffering of the animal. Research in pain physiology and pain management necessarily and unavoidably causes pain in the laboratory animals. It is justified because (1) the duration of the pain is kept to the minimum necessary for the study, and (2) the research leads to improved prevention and treatment of pain in humans (and in animals, by the way, in veterinary medicine). It is acceptable to cause some pain in animals to relieve it in humans because, among other reasons, humans not only experience pain as animals do, but (in apparent distinction to animals) experience another and greater level of suffering by their ability to impute an interpretation to the pain, and to project it in time. Since all these phenomena–pain, suffering, dread, anguish–are subjective, I recognize that these claims are not provable. Similarly, one cannot PROVE that a human or animal has pain, only that he exhibits pain-related behavior. But the distinction I describe is congruent with everything we know about animal vs human higher brain function.
April 27th, 2010 | 6:02 am
[...] in an apparent desire to paint all animal rights people with the same brush, Wesley Smith says the following: Animal rights activists–as opposed to animal welfare proponents–universally oppose all medical [...]
April 27th, 2010 | 9:25 am
Bret: “would not experimenting on humans, lead to even greater advances, in terms of cures for diseases? ”
Bret, we do experiments on humans, they’re called “clinical trials.” Animal testing usually takes a broad brush approach, trying to get some idea what the treatment does and what safe levels are. But figuring out whether a treatment works on humans at some point requires trying it on humans.
And even beyond trials, when a treatment comes into mass use, almost invariably unforeseen side effects occur (Vioxx, thalidomide, and thousands of less severe instances). They are tracked as adverse effects and the knowledge gained from them guides the refinement of the treatment, or its complete withdrawal from use. Ironically I’ve seen a lot of AR activists claim that this amounts to experimenting on humans, and “proves” the animal testing was invalid.
That’s testing, which is one side. The other side is basic research, some of which is done on animals because you can’t practically or ethically perform the test effectively on humans. For instance, understanding the basic function of HIV required infecting non-human primates with the SIV virus at a known time, and watching its progression over time under controlled conditions. I spoke to a prominent human HIV researcher (who does NOT work with non-human primates) if the nhp research was necessary to his work, and he said he could not have made the breakthroughs he had without being able to track the disease this way.
Obviously not many humans will volunteer to be infected with HIV and kept in isolation. However, Covance and others do conduct human studies where the subjects more or less live in the lab and their diet, sleep, etc. are completely controlled. You can volunteer for one if you want to pick up some extra cash in your free time.
April 27th, 2010 | 12:20 pm
“How did people manage before the animal experimenters and medical research industry relieved everyone’s suffering?”
They died early. Haven’t you noticed that lately life expectancy lately has been awfully high. We better do something about that, as humans are a terrible burden on the plant and its precious animals.
I don’t really see the point of Bret Lythgoe’s comment. This is FIRST THINGS. It’s a Christian blog and the Christian religion clearly states that humans are exceptional and unlike all animals, made in God’s image. Wesley is not a utilitarian and neither am I, since it leads to such crock conclusions as we should experiment on 10 people to save 100. Utilitarianism is a good tool, but it is amoral and devoid of the context of human relationships.
But even if you are not a Christian, there are plenty of reasons not to be for AR. We don’t give people rights because they are aware or feel pain, we give them rights because they are fellow moral beings, our family members, our children, our sisters, and our brothers. It benefits our humanity to protect other humans.
If killing an animal is wrong, than wolves must be murderers. Oh, did you say that they aren’t moral beings and so get an exception? Well, you just admitted why humans are different.
April 27th, 2010 | 1:20 pm
Yes befriending innocent animals then poisoning them is sound ethical research… Give me a break
Im against animal testing as its wrong, I suggest using peadophiles, rapists etc in their place & guess what .. they are a human model but im guessing most would prefer to continue torturing iknnocents & protect the criminals????
Huntingdon life sciences is a good place to start … puppie, kitten, mice, primate killers.
And whats with outsourcing animal testing to China?
My god they skin nearly 3,000,000 dogs & cats ALIVE each year for fur??
Death = Part Of Life .. Accept It
Animal Testing = Pure Evil & No Diffrent At All To What The Nazi’s Did, Only Diffrence There Was People Can Talk.
If These Scientist Are So INTELLIGENT Then I Challenge Them To Use Their Brains & Find Non Animal Means.
April 27th, 2010 | 3:44 pm
Christian: “If These Scientist Are So INTELLIGENT Then I Challenge Them To Use Their Brains & Find Non Animal Means.”
I’ll challenge you to do the same, Christian.
Frankly, I’m getting a little tired of AR advocates claiming this is possible while contributing absolutely nothing to the effort to reduce our reliance on animal testing and research.
April 27th, 2010 | 4:08 pm
Let’s start with some simple logic: Do you think it would be scientifically possible to find a cure for a sick mouse by experimenting on a healthy human baby? Absurd? Of course it is! That is the same reason that extrapolating the results of animal experiments to humans is BAD SCIENCE.
We are not talking about a small deviation from “100% correlation”; rather we are talking about thousands of unaccounted-for differences between humans and non-human animals. The results of experiments that cannot possibly account for these variables is guesswork at best. As Ms. Haigwood points out, drugs and therapies still need “human trials” (and who would that be?) before we can know if they work for humans. The fact is that animal experiments are so misleading that we could leave them out of the equation entirely and be far better off financially and not compromise human health.
I do not believe that the moral issue will ever stop animal experimentation because if someone is truly convinced that “it’s your dog or your baby”, they will, out of survival instinct, choose their own species. The sad fact is that it’s not your dog or your baby; it’s both. Animals suffer and humans suffer and die from ill effects of drugs “safety tested” on animals. Thalidimide, Paracetamol, Orabilex, Stilbestral, Trilergan, Phenformin, Preludin, Pronap, Phenacetin, Amydopyrine, Resperine are just a few examples of drugs that were “safety tested” on animals and had disastrous effects on humans. By the same token, had penicillin been tested on guinea pigs, we would not have this very useful drug today; it kills guinea pigs.
Additionally, Ms. Haigwood’s comment about animal studies being “highly regulated, where the animals are well cared for and suffering is not allowed” is ludicrous. The whole point of the experiments is to induce trauma and/or disease and try to find a way to “cure” it. How this can be done when “suffering is not allowed” is beyond me. I also point out here that any induced “disease” is not really the disease in question as animals don’t get the same diseases as humans, and even if they did, an artificially induced “disease” is not the same as one that arises spontaneously from a whole person.
Finally, I invite you to carefully examine the “advancements from various labs” that Ms. Haigwood points out. There is nothing concrete here from the results of these animal experiments. We do, however, see a lot of “may cause”, “might potentially, “possible method”, etc. language that drives home the point that animal experimentation yields no truly useful information. Animal suffering aside for the moment, what an obscene waste of money!…money that could be used to truly help human patients.
April 27th, 2010 | 5:39 pm
[...] “Why We Need Animal Research” at Secondhand Smoke (April 26, 2010) [...]
April 27th, 2010 | 8:29 pm
Diane, virtually everything you say is contradicted here:
http://speakingofresearch.com/extremism-undone/bad-science/
Let me know what you think.
April 27th, 2010 | 9:41 pm
Padraig: Obviously, you’re right, we do allow clinical trials, but there’s an important distinction that you appear to be overlooking: humans give consent, animals necessarily cannot. And, in human trials, no human is intentionally killed, during or at the end of the experimentation. And, there’s the possibility that the human involved might get a benefit. That is, as part of the consent process, the person is informed that he/she may derive a benefit, or not (i.e., they may get a placebo, or the treatment that they’re testing). The specific animals involved are never benefited.
But I’m asking a more fundamental question, which is, what moral authority, do we humans have, to experiment on any conscoius animal. And, the fact that they cannot give consent, should make us even more concerned.
You seem to be looking at this from a purely pragmatic standpoint. I’m looking at this from a more philosophic perspective.
The thinker I admire most, and who has the most philosophically sophisticated approach, is Gary Francione, law professor, and sometime debating partner of wesley Smith. I suggest that you, with an open mind, read his work, and you may change your mind.(of course, Im an eternal optomist).
April 27th, 2010 | 9:58 pm
Melissa: I’m afraid, sadly, you’ve missed the point of my posts generally, and this one in particular. I’m questioning the basic assumptions, that allow us to believe that we have a moral basis for experimenting on other animals. what I proposed, above, was a thought experiment.
I do not believe that humans should be experimented on (without their consent and well being taken into account). My point was, that, if animals have rights, we have no right to experiment on them.
Since when does being a Christian mean that you cannot believe in animal rights? This may be your opinion, but not mine. True, for historically contingent reasons, the animal rights movement has not usually been allied with religion, or conservativism, but I hope to change that. There’s no logical reason for animal rights to not be allied with Christianity.
By the way, this is NOT a specifically Christian blog. Wesley Smith does not use religious arguments. And, neither is First Things generally. It’s an interreligious blog, which includes, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others.
Finilly your last “argument” is fallacious. There ARE humans who cannot behave morally toward you or me they’re called babies, small children, fetuses, etc. True they don’t “murder” anyone (of course, neither do wolves, this is a legal term applicable only to humans of sound mental funtioning), but they cannot behave toward you or me any better than the wolves can.
April 27th, 2010 | 11:24 pm
Humans have had a long, and notorius histiory of exploiting weaker beings, whether human or other animal. Wesley Smith, rightly, states that we, at one point used vulnerable humans for experimentation. certainly not one of our prouder moments. i suspect that, or at least hope, that one hundred years from now we will look on animal experimenters with the same disdain.
Wesley Smith concedes that animals are conscious, and suffer, but, hey, for the good of humankind, we must continue the animal research. No, we must not. One of the greatest traits that humans possess, is our ability to come up with great ethical systems. It’s an assault on reason, and our dignity, to discard these ethical systems (that animal suffering matters, and the animal has a right to exist unharmed), for crass pragmatic reasons. Ironically, it’s precisely these crass pragmatic concerns, that persuaded previous generations of scientists to experiment on vulnerable people.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 28th, 2010 at 8:36 am
Bret: I think here’s the nub of the disagreement: I think we have duties to animals but higher duties to ourselves. In other words, I reject equal consideration. You believe our duties to animals are equal to those of ourselves. And you are willing to see humans harmed or not benefited by putting animals on this equal plane. In either case, it is human exceptionalism since we are the only species who could have such a debate and would put “the other” in front of our own desires or interests based on an ethical principle.
April 28th, 2010 | 12:28 am
Padraig: I Did Offer Another Means … Test On Peadophiles etc But Like I Said You Pro Testers Would Probadly Choose To Protect The Criminals (Vivisectors, Peadophiles etc).
Also Death Is Part Of Life But Being A Father I Know Most Kids Would Not Approve Of Any Animal Testing …
Why Are Cleaning Chemicals Tested On Aniimals???
Any Idiot With Half A Brain Knows Drinking Dishwashing Liquid Is Bad Or Why Do We Test Makeup .. Im AR & Im A Christian, Battle Ready!!
April 28th, 2010 | 12:31 am
Christianity Clearly States That Animals Where Made Perfect, Vivi-Sectors NOT!!
April 28th, 2010 | 9:41 am
Christian: “Padraig: I Did Offer Another Means … Test On Peadophiles etc But Like I Said You Pro Testers Would Probadly Choose To Protect The Criminals (Vivisectors, Peadophiles etc).”
OK, then I’ll challenge you to find a legal, ethical, and effective means, since what you’re proposing is none of those.
Also, being a “vivisector” is not a crime, or every doctor and dentist would be in jail.
And I do not protect pedophiles. Your insults are childish and I must add, very non-Christian.
April 28th, 2010 | 9:56 am
Bret: “And, in human trials, no human is intentionally killed, during or at the end of the experimentation. And, there’s the possibility that the human involved might get a benefit. That is, as part of the consent process, the person is informed that he/she may derive a benefit, or not (i.e., they may get a placebo, or the treatment that they’re testing). ”
Plenty of humans die in trials. It’s not the intention, but it’s an accepted and even expected outcome for a certain number of subjects in any large scale trial. For people in dire situations (and I’ve known a few), it’s basically a huge gamble. It can be “kill or cure.” I don’t think such people see trial participation being a huge boon to them.
“The specific animals involved are never benefited.”
Pretty much true. Their species often benefits, though, just as our species benefits from humans who are adversely affected on trials but whose data leads to improved treatments. A whole lot of veterinary medicine, not to mention medicine that is used to help wild animal populations, comes out of research on captive animals.
That’s how I deal with the ethical question. What is the overall effect of this activity on the non-human species, compared to the benefit our species derives? It goes way beyond human use of animals, it’s more ecology-based. In some cases killing an individual of a species hurts the species (if the breeding stock is low), in other cases it helps the species (if there’s overpopulation or the individual is diseased).
And no, I do not apply that reasoning to individual humans. Though it’s tempting sometimes.
April 28th, 2010 | 10:55 am
“here ARE humans who cannot behave morally toward you or me they’re called babies, small children, fetuses, etc.”
Gee, I wonder why we would want to protect them? Did you not read my argument “We don’t give people rights because they are aware or feel pain, we give them rights because they are fellow moral beings, our family members, our children, our sisters, and our brothers. It benefits our humanity to protect other humans.”
April 28th, 2010 | 10:56 am
Christianity will also never align with AR because the Bible makes it clear that humans have dominion over animals. There are numerous instances in the Bible of God condoning the use of animals for human benefit whether in the form of sacrifices or as food.
April 28th, 2010 | 12:19 pm
Wesley, I noticed you added “or not benefited” to your response to Bret: “And you are willing to see humans harmed or not benefited by putting animals on this equal plane.”
Is that in answer to my question earlier: “what about animal experiments that are not intended to cure diseases”?
If so, the bar has been completely removed, it is no longer about justifying experiments on animals to fight epidemics like small pox, now all that matters is that humans “benefit” somehow? Are there any Transhumanist ideas that you don’t agree with?
April 28th, 2010 | 12:56 pm
Bret: “My point was, that, if animals have rights, we have no right to experiment on them.”
So, it would follow that if they don’t have rights, we do have the right to experiment on them?
Well, animals don’t have rights. We haven’t granted them rights, and they don’t grant each other rights. That’s ostensibly why the AR movement exists, isn’t it?
April 28th, 2010 | 2:30 pm
Animal experimentation works and has helped humanity to hold onto that which it values most for a longer period time then our ancestors could ever realize. That value added is longer life spans for our dearest friends & relatives who would have died without animal experimentation. In fact the median life span of humanity has risen from 49.9 years of age in the 1930 era to 80.9 in the year 2008. That happened because of better medical procedures all of which were tested on animals first & despite a median increase of higher quantity of meat in human diets. Seems ARA are more interested in demonizing mankind for living longer due to animal research and using animals to keep our diets more balanced which both increase human lifespans.
April 28th, 2010 | 8:08 pm
Wesley Smith: I think that you have hit on the disagreement. I do respect your position. I think that you have arrived at your views through honest reflection. I think the heart of our disagreement is what the rational foundation of rights consists of. If I’ve understood you correctly, you believe that only humans have rights, and these rights come automatically with having the human genetic code. One might then ask why? Is this self evident? Or God given? Or do you rely on another set of arguments, that lead inexorably to the acceptance of the human genetic code as being what gives humans rights?
The best that I can tell, you seem to accept, as a self evident axiom, that human rights are derived from the fact that humans have a human genetic code, so we have rights, and animals, by virtue of their lack of a genetic code, that’s human, do not have rights. I just don’t see how having a particular genetic code is relevant morally.
Your alternative basis, for only humans having rights is, that we’re, to put it simply, so much smarter and therefore more productive than other animals. But this basis, puts you in the less than enviable position of logically having to accept that babies, fetuses, mentally handicapped people, etc., due to their lack of intelligence and consequent productivity, (like animals) don’t have rights either.
Or, perhaps, it’s just pragmatism on your part. We’re human, and we have to save ourselves.
My basis, for believing that a being has rights, is that it’s conscious, or will be conscious. This seems to me to be the most morally germane basis for giving a being rights.
April 28th, 2010 | 8:19 pm
Hi Mellissa: My point in bringing up babies, fetuses, etc., was that they are no more capable of behaving morally toward you or me, than a wolf, or any other animal. The babies, fetuses, are, of course, very different than animals, but the same in their inability to reciprocate morally. Obviously, my point was NOT, that babies, fetuses, etc., have no rights, they certainly do. My point was, that if you base your claim, that only humans have rights, on the notion, that only humans can behave morally toward each other, to be logically consistent, you must accept, that babies, fetuses,etc., fall into the same “no rights” category as animals.
I
April 28th, 2010 | 8:28 pm
Hi Mellissa: Also, I believe that God wants us to use our reason to progress, and make life better for all conscious beings, human and animal. Do you not believe these things? Do you really think that God would create these other, conscious beings, just so we can use them as we wish?
And, since you brought up the bible, there’s A LOT in the bible, that we no longer accept. My guess is that you don’t agree with Paul that women should “submit” to their husbands, or that homosexuals should be stoned. Or at least I hope and pray that you don’t believe these things.
While I’m at it, most Christian churches, hundreds of years ago, accepted or tolerated slavery. Were they wrong? I think so, and I think you do too.
April 28th, 2010 | 8:44 pm
Padraig: You’re right, many humans are inadvertantly killed in experiments. I might be willing to allow animals to be experimented on, ONLY, if they’re given the same moral consideration that humans, who choose to be in experiments, are given.
But here’s the problem: animals cannot give consent. So this is a hurdle that we cannot get around. Possibly, if the animal is given all of the same moral consideration that a human, in a comparable experiment is given, then the animal experiment might be morally permissible. That is, give the animal the same corresponding treatment, that a human would get, which would include, but not be limited to, stopping when the health or life of the animal is threatened. And, treat the animal in a way that, if, hypothetically, it could give consent, it would, because it’s well being is taken into acount in the same way a consenting human’s is.
Do you really believe that, we, as an arbitrary act of will, or power, “give” humans rights? If so, they’re essentially worthless, because, other humans, with more power or will, could just as easily take them away. Isn’t it better to believe that rights are discovered? Not like how, say, a planet is discovered, but through logical and moral reflection?
April 28th, 2010 | 9:33 pm
Bret: “If I’ve understood you correctly, you believe that only humans have rights, and these rights come automatically with having the human genetic code.”
Bret, please look up “straw man argument” and why it is invalid.
Wes said nothing about rights deriving from genetic code, and if he ever did, he was wrong.
Rights derive from a social contract between members of a society who have a meeting of the minds regarding what rights exist and what responsibilities are required to maintain those rights.
As you have pointed out, animals can’t give legal consent. They can’t accept responsibilities, so they can’t have rights. Nor do they need them. They do fine within their own societies, they don’t need to be part of human society.
Don’t try to force humanity on animals. Like the old saying goes, if you try to teach a pig to sing, you will fail, and you will annoy the pig.
April 28th, 2010 | 9:37 pm
Bret: “Do you really believe that, we, as an arbitrary act of will, or power, “give” humans rights? If so, they’re essentially worthless, because, other humans, with more power or will, could just as easily take them away.”
Yep. They’re only as strong as the social structure backing them up. That’s why people in America have more rights than, say, someone living in Afghanistan or Somalia, where militias rule society.
April 28th, 2010 | 9:55 pm
Hi Padraig: If the basis for human rights is the social contract, as you say, then we’re left with the same problem with babies, fetuses, the mentally handicapped. They are, like animals, unable to enter into the social contract.
So here is part of you, and wesley’s problem: you cannot coherently explain why humans, who are unable to enter into the social contract should somehow be given rights.
This strikes me as a fatal blow to your theory.
April 28th, 2010 | 9:57 pm
Padraig: By the way, my guess is that animals do need our help, with everyone trying to justify killing them!
April 28th, 2010 | 11:16 pm
Padraig: The social contract theory fails, because babies, fetuses, the mentally handicapped, cannot consent to the social contract.
The problem is, you have no basis, other than your own power, and will, to prevent others from doing you harm. If you have enough power, you win. If not, tough luck. Part , ironically, of what makes us “exceptional”, is our ability to recognize moral standards. Not create them, recognize them. You apparently, are an adherent of moral relativism, or moral nihilism.
April 29th, 2010 | 1:26 am
Padraig: I didn’t mean to sound harsh, in my previous post, when I stated that you seem to be an endorser of moral relativism or nihilism. It just seems that these are the only noncontradictory positions to have, if one believes that moral standards are our creation, rather than our discovery.
I think that part of the attraction of the notion that morals are our creation, is it seems to make sense of the differing legal systems, across space and time. Were the romans correct in their views, or are we? Is the US right in how are laws are deviced, or is China? The lack of uniformity here, has lead some to conclude that, morality is just about preferences. Padraig, I don’t think you really believe this, otherwise, why are you spending time, trying to convince me, and others, that your moral views, such as the necessity of animal research, are correct?
It seems absurd to me, that morals are really just about preferences, and who has the most power. Let me put it this way, to show the implications of your thinking here: do you really think that there’s no morally right or wrong, regarding slavery, or murder?
April 29th, 2010 | 9:48 am
Bret: “So here is part of you, and wesley’s problem: you cannot coherently explain why humans, who are unable to enter into the social contract should somehow be given rights.
This strikes me as a fatal blow to your theory.”
Bret later: “I think that part of the attraction of the notion that morals are our creation, is it seems to make sense of the differing legal systems, across space and time.”
Not a fatal blow, for reasons you suggested. Human morals and social systems have evolved differently in different places over time. Modern communications have made it possible to compare systems and have led to some homogeneity. But when Jimmy Carter started promoting a system of universal human rights, it was a new idea, and that wasn’t too long ago.
So, the main objects of any social system is to enhance the welfare of its members, and to ensure the continuation of the system itself. In our system young humans are treated as future contributors, and trained accordingly.
The handicapped are a different story; that we take care of them is a sign that we value all humans regardless of their ability. The difference being that a child is expected to someday become a contributor, the handicapped person may or may not be.
However, it’s important to realize that our society moderates rights according to ability. A child can’t vote. A mentally handicapped person can’t get a driver’s license, and so on.
So, children and handicapped do have rights and they are part of the social contract. They are granted rights in exchange for meeting a level of responsibility set by society.
April 29th, 2010 | 9:55 am
Bret: “It seems absurd to me, that morals are really just about preferences, and who has the most power.”
Defining morals is about preferences. So is life and death. “Choices” would be a better word. Enforcing morals can be a matter of force, if the person(s) violating the morals is using force. That’s why policemen have guns. If the “good guys” are unwilling to use force, the first “bad guy” with a weapon takes over. And not just violence, it’s the same with money, the spoken word, the internet, etc. All just tools that can be used for right or wrong.
” Let me put it this way, to show the implications of your thinking here: do you really think that there’s no morally right or wrong, regarding slavery, or murder?”
I have no idea how you would regard that as the implications of my thinking, so I can’t respond to that.
April 29th, 2010 | 10:18 am
On a lighter note, I propose that we experiment on lawyers instead of rats. Reasons: researchers don’t get attached to lawyers, and there are some things that rats just won’t do. :)
April 29th, 2010 | 2:20 pm
Old but good joke, K-Dude. I suspect Counsellor Smith has heard it before too. ;)
April 29th, 2010 | 4:39 pm
Bret Lythgoe, I am not a Christian :) But I am more educated about it than you are having grown up as one. The New Testament prohibits slavery and all the other things you listed. It’s hilarious the nonsense AR people spout “Just because stone age people had slavery doesn’t make it right.” Slavery and rape are cultural, using animals for our benefit is universal.
Rights were created for humans to mediate human relationships for human benefit. There is no magic “natural code of rights” that extends it to animals. This is as much a form of religion as the Christianity you do not follow.
And I don’t believe babies have rights and neither do many people. They have protections.
April 29th, 2010 | 9:14 pm
Melissa: rights are, I believe, a reflection of reality, just like mathemathics is a reflection of reality. This is important. It means that, they cannot be given or taken away, legitimately.
The history of Christianity, is, like most religions, mixed and complicated, on many issues, and slavery is no exception. Yes, there were powerful forces in Christianity, that opposed slavery, but there were also factions that accepted it.
I DO believe that babies have rights, just like you, me, and all people. I base this on their consciousness, or that they will be conscous.
April 29th, 2010 | 9:50 pm
Padraig: we are discussing two different things: whether morality, and rights are created or discovered, and whether or not social contract theory is legitimate.
When one looks at anthropological sudies, one is struck by the remarkable similarities of moral systems of different cultures, that had no interaction. i would suggest you read an excellent book by James Wilson, called The Moral Sense. His central thesis is that, all humans share a basic moral sense, that can only be explained genetically. the fact that we have different legal systems is a reflection of complex cultural factors.
Our moral systems, and resultant legal systems, are, I would submit, reflections of reality, analagous to how scientific systems are not “creations” of scientists, but discoveries, by scientists. The fact that we’ve had many legal systems, in history, and in different countries, no more suggests that there’s no right legal and underlying moral system, than the fact that we’ve had many scienitific theories devised, means there’s no right scientific system.
To put it differently, we both believe that two plus two, equals four, right? this is not disputible. Analagously, there’s a correct moral system, and its correct derivative legal system. Perhaps we have not found it yet, but it exists. Otherwise, one has no coherent response to all the terrible legal systems that have existed. If someone asserts that, say, nazism, is correct, you could not logically respond by saying he’s wrong, UNLESS you had a correct system to refer to.
Regarding the social contract theory, my point is, that for it to work, one must consent to it. Animals cannot, in principle, consent to it, so there out of luck, and have no rights, according to this view. Babies, children, the mentally handicapped, and so forth, also, in principle, cannot consent to the social contract theory, and so,under this theory, they have no rights either. I, frankly, did not detect, in your post, any reason why the social contract theory is valid, and moreover, that it coherently extends to babies,or children. You did state that babies are potential “contributors” to society, so we value them. An I to infer, from this, that if they could not contribute, they have no rights? you also said that, essentially, we portect the mentally handicapped, because we “value” them What does this mean? What if a particular legal system doesn’t value them? How could you consistently say they’re wrong, if it’s all about preferences? And, if we choose to value them, how could you object, logically, to animals being given the same consideration?
April 29th, 2010 | 11:23 pm
Padraig: I did write a post earlier, but it appears not to have gone through. There are two issues here. Is morality (and the proper legal superstructure derived from it) discovered, or created. And, does social contract theory make sense?
The only legitimate response, to, say, someone who claims that a terrible legal system like nazism is wrong, is to say that it doen’t correspond to the true moral and legal system. Otherwise, you have no coherent defense against this claim, other than you don’t like it.
With repect to social contract theory, in orde for it to work, a being must, in principle, be able to consent to it. Babies, the mentally handicapped, children, cannot. So either they have no rights under this scheme, or this social contract scheme is wrong. I opt for the latter.
You claim that babies are contributors. am I to infer from this that if babies cannot later contribute, we won’t “give” them rights? And, what rational basis do you have under your social contract theory, to grant mentally handicapped people rights? you seem to implicitly recognize this, with your assertion that we value them, regarless of their abilities. Am I wrong?
Finally, What rational basis would you have, if the majority of people decided to value animals, like handicapped people, if it’s all about preferences?
April 30th, 2010 | 9:09 am
Bret Lythgoe, you believe in natural rights? That’s ridiculous if you do not believe in religion. Rights are no more natural than underwear. They don’t exist in nature at all. The universe is indifferent. If rights were natural then nature wouldn’t inherently involve so much misery. Have you ever dealt with predators? I had the misfortune of feeding injured hawks once and even I was horrified as they devoured the entrails of still-conscious mice. It’s a wonderful accident that humans evolved the ability to debate just acts and devise systems in improve our lot.
Nazism is wrong because even then humanism was around and opposing it, but you are right, it would be pointless to say that some ancient culture from 10,000 BC was immoral for having slaves since humanism had not been invented.
“than the fact that we’ve had many scienitific theories devised, means there’s no right scientific system.”
More proof ARists don’t understand science. Science is not relative- it’s discovering natural systems. There aren’t different types of science, there is increasing sophistication in discerning the truth. Idiotic theories like flat earth and spontaneous generation were theories and now we know they are wrong. They aren’t different types of science! Science can involve untested theories, but in the end we are looking for right or wrong laws.
Most ARists don’t have children either. Which is why they can’t seem to figure out why we don’t eat babies. Gee? I wonder!
April 30th, 2010 | 9:19 am
Bret: “Is morality (and the proper legal superstructure derived from it) discovered, or created? ”
Created, by and for humans.
Bret: “And, does social contract theory make sense?”
Yes.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
May 1st, 2010 | 2:43 am
Melissa: I my point was that, some might argue that because scientists, change their minds, based on new empirical evidence, maybe science doen’t really discover things. Analogously, they might say morality doesn’t discover truths either, because we change our views here as well. But since no educated person (except for the postmodern crowd) believes that science doen’t discover reality, no one should believe that morality wasn’t discovered either.
My guess is i dion’t need a lecture from you, Melissa, about my understanding of science, thank you. Science is about methodology:accumulating empirical data, forming deductions from that data, and devising theories. I would love to discuss with you the philosophy of science, but I’m afraid you might have a hard time keeping up.
Actually I do do believe in religion, and i do believe in natural rights. Your’e wrong though, many non religious people believe in natural rights, but it is true that it’s more likely to find religious people adhering to natural rights, but there’s no natural logocal connection between the two.
You seem intelligent Melissa, and I enjoy talking to you, but forgive me, you seem a little arrogant, in telling me what I am and what I’m not.
May 1st, 2010 | 2:49 am
Padraig: my guess is we have hit an impasse. Another problem with social contract theory is even WE cannot really consent to it. We were just born in this system, maybe I missed the netting where we all gave our formal consent?
May 1st, 2010 | 3:10 am
Melissa: Please re-read my post to paraig, regarding the analogy that I provided between the science and morality. You seem to have misread it. I was never arguing that scientists don’t discover truth, I was pointing out that, because new findings arise, and we have to revise our scientific theories, as a result, some, who misunderstand science might sieze on this and claim, that, because it’s always changing, it really doesn’t discover truth. Analogously, some might say, because we change our morals, based, I would submit, on new discoveries, some might then, erroneously, claim there’s no moral truth. That was my point. But if you re-read my post on it, you’ll see that that is what I said.
I do apologize for saying you were arrogant, but it does seem that you jump to conclusions, at least about my claims and motives.
May 1st, 2010 | 3:55 am
Melissa:”Nazism is wrong because even then humanism was around and opposing it, but you are right,it would be pointless to say that some ancient culture from 10,000 B.C. was immoral for having slaves since humanism had not been invented”.
Actually, Melissa, if you’re right, and there’s no such thing as an objective moral order, you would have no coherent response to the nazi. That is, ypu would simply have a different preference than him. He would try to convince you that his system was right, you will try to convince him that yours is, but you’ll hit an impasse, because you’ll have no objective moral standard to refer to, to convince him he’s wrong.
By the way, discovering moral truths is no different than discovevering mathematical truths, in that they’re both discovered in an a priori way, NOT an empirical way.
May 7th, 2010 | 5:58 am
Research in laboratories is cruel, and none of us would like to happen to him. So we have to understand that even the animals do not like to suffer.
I agree with animal research, but only in the wild. Yes, this process takes longer, but gives equally good results, and best of all is that nobody can be hurt.
http://siberiantiger1.blogspot.com
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact