Now I come in and present a new point I figure I should make.
Some humans are-- in fact --willing to be tested on for a dollar amount.. which can be beneficial to them, as well as science. Some humans are trapped on death row or in prison for life with nothing better to do than contribute to science. Such is the case for most (all?) serial killers.
My point is, why torment and/or kill a bunch of animals (with plenty of disposal costs thrown in, I'm sure) when you can put people up to the test? They'd live through more tests, with the ability to tell you about their experiences. Legal human usage for testing would also involve getting the approval of said subjects, which I find to be a particularly good bonus. Because hey, maybe that rabbit doesn't want a needle in his belly today. Maybe he wants to live longer and enjoy more of his rabbit life, you never know.
I think I need to debate something entirely different than whether animal testing is ethical. What is the point of punishing the wicked?
To say the current model of prisons in the United States has failed is an understatement. 1 in 11 men are currently incarcerated. Violent offenders are in a revolving door with no way to actually rehabilitate these men. 3 in 4 former prisoners in 30 states are arrested within five years of release according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Something obviously isn't working.
According to statistics, repeat offenders are key. The people who commit crimes don't give a shit about life sentences when they commit crimes. They are well aware there is swift and harsh punishment. In the eyes of 1 in 11 men in the United States, punishment doesn't work. If that's the case, then what does?
These are horrible, evil people that we need to give proper room and board, have engaged in substantial counseling efforts, and convince that violence is wrong; not because I'm going to make you hurt if you hurt someone else, but because it's a bad thing to do. Who are we to denounce criminals and then do the exact same things to them, at least in the eyes of the inmates? Sure they're the worst scum on the face of the planet, but the only way to reduce crime is to not give these people their comeuppance. It will make you made. It will make you hate yourself. And it's the right thing to do. We cannot let our emotions get in the way of doing good.
The point of punishing the wicked is to promote good. We promote more good not by punishing them, but by teaching them. And so testing on on prisoners is no more ethical than testing on animals.
EDIT: For clarification, I would like to say that to exclude prisoners from testing entirely is wrong. Prisoner should be able to have a choice in the matter, maybe even incentives it the benefits of human testing are worth testing in humans, but forced admittance is unethical.
It does make sense, but I really can't agree with it. I think I mentioned in a different thread at some point that humans have a responsibility to take care of what's around them: animals, ecosystems, etc. I find it incredibly selfish, if natural, to value human life over animal life. Having a conscience, we should know that it's not right to equate the intentional pain and suffering of a lab animal (bred for the purpose or not) to the monetary gain it may provide. There may be amazing advancements involved with the study's conclusions. It's all great, but I think there ought to be better ways to go around it that aren't explored because animal use is still dubbed passable or acceptable. We're not even looking for alternatives because that cry isn't loud enough. As long as it isn't, animals will continue to be used for this purpose, one that I reiterate is selfish and immoral.
It's a very touchy subject since for appropriate testing, you need subjects with similar DNA, conditions, etc. that can give you some kind of reaction that could be understood as having the same effect in a human's scenario. Plants wouldn't really be appropriate for this end, I don't think, because of the difference. We could always invest in a DNA alternative, though, where we create a model for this purpose, but that research would be incredibly expensive. Again, goes back to the root that because it's not worth the extra effort, and the outrage about animal rights isn't loud enough, it's OK to keep doing this as long as it's profitable.
It's bleak, really.
There we go! That's what I wanted to hear. This argument just got meta.
To me, ethics are doing the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of beings. This is a lot more complicated than it sounds, and can lead to completely nonsensical actions (my prisoner rehabilitation post is a good
ba-dum-crash example). You would be surprised to learn that I hold animals to the same ethics I do with humans. A dog who knows kindness is a soul I would protect to the greatest extent I reasonably can. A rabbit who knows kindness is a soul I would protect to the greatest extent I reasonably can. A monkey who knows kindness is a soul I would protect to the greatest extend I reasonably can. I don't care what species you are; I want to promote my definition of ethics whenever I can, because I view it's the right thing to do. I believe you hold the same ethics I do, and I believe you know it.
But there is something different about bunnies and monkeys. We need to be tolerant of other cultures, but not to the extent of compromising our ethics. I view a bunny, an animal who is far aware of kindness than a human, as inferior not because they are a different species but because they don't have ethics. A bunny can only barely differentiate between right and wrong, only what works and what doesn't.
I know exactly what you are about to say: They cannot be kind because they physically can't be kind, as they are a little challenged upstairs. You are completely right. That doesn't mean I won't promote being ethical. I will reward bunnies that perform good actions. But I do not view the "bunny culture" as more capable of understanding ethics than human culture. Sure, we do plenty of horrible things that no bunny would ever do, but we also have the capacity to do acts of far greater kindness. If we want a world of peace, a world of friendship, a world of good intentions, a world of love, promoting humans is the best course of action. That doesn't mean we should exterminate animals from the face of the planet, far from it. Biodiversity is just a key in helping the masses as genetic testing in animals. Nature is able of producing medicines and compounds that do wonders science can only dream of. Who knows if the cure to cancer, AIDS, or Parkinson's will not be synthesized in a lab but found within the animal or plant kingdoms?
But as much it hurts, genetic testing cannot yet be done in ethical grounds. It hurts my soul to know that animals who've done nothing wrong are subjected to this fate. I will do everything I could reasonably be expected to to end testing in animals. It is not OK to test in animals because of profit. It is not OK to test in animals because it's a shortcut. It is OK to test in animals because we are to do good as our conscience states. Eliminate unnecessary testing, give test animals as much comfort you as they can benefit from, invest in DNA alternatives, hell, find any ethical alternative. But to stop testing is to violate the very reason we test on animals, to be hypocritical.
Sorry for the post lag I've had, I keep my posts open long for editing and often have someone else comment while I'm doing so.
