Ethics involving Science

Started by Puddle January 28th, 2014 8:39 AM
  • 452 views
  • 6 replies

Puddle

Mission Complete✔

Age 27
Male
Jacksonville, Florida
Seen November 17th, 2019
Posted September 5th, 2014
1,458 posts
9.4 Years
A big question asked today is "Is it ethical to perform experiments on Animals?"
We had this discussion in my Psychology class and it seems that most people believe it's unethical, however it's the best way of getting it right before performing on humans. Which to us, would be the most important life form. We should focus on our health instead of the health of other animals first.

What is your viewpoint on this? Do you feel like it should be done? Is it ethical? Are science ethics different than those of our daily lives? Thoughts?

I personally believe it's unethical however it's the best way to discover things to improve our daily lives. However, if we can, I'd like to see us be able to do it all mechanically rather than having to use another life form to perform the tasks.

Male
Somewhere in the universe
Seen June 2nd, 2015
Posted November 25th, 2014
666 posts
9.6 Years
I think it is ethical to a certain extent. Makeup is fine. Vitamins and cures are fine. Tested the newest taser isn't fine. Would you want scientist to test a new medicine on a human? No. What if we die or grow big warts all over? If we see that happening on rodents, we know not to do it on humans yet. If you are "testing" something as an excuse to kill animals, that is wrong. Don't forget we eat and hunt animals.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who ever believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

I believe in Jesus Christ my Savior. If you do too, and aren't scared to admit it, then copy and paste this in your signature.

Member of the Christian Community!

Puddle

Mission Complete✔

Age 27
Male
Jacksonville, Florida
Seen November 17th, 2019
Posted September 5th, 2014
1,458 posts
9.4 Years
I think it is ethical to a certain extent. Makeup is fine. Vitamins and cures are fine. Tested the newest taser isn't fine. Would you want scientist to test a new medicine on a human? No. What if we die or grow big warts all over? If we see that happening on rodents, we know not to do it on humans yet. If you are "testing" something as an excuse to kill animals, that is wrong. Don't forget we eat and hunt animals.
People are dying due to a disease and we need a cure. Would you rather test possible cures on humans, or attempt on a lab rat first?
You have to think of the greater life form sometimes.

Male
Somewhere in the universe
Seen June 2nd, 2015
Posted November 25th, 2014
666 posts
9.6 Years
But what if the cure makes the human worse? We wouldn't know unless we tested on a rat. Did you know the bacteria killing people get stronger? They adapt to what the medicine does and learn to fight it off. The less we test medicine on people, the better.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who ever believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

I believe in Jesus Christ my Savior. If you do too, and aren't scared to admit it, then copy and paste this in your signature.

Member of the Christian Community!
Age 29
Male
Melbourne, Australia
Seen January 2nd, 2015
Posted November 28th, 2014
910 posts
12.1 Years
@BadPokemon. You have to think for a second about the cosmetics vs taser thing for a second. You're comparing something that could potentially cause harm with something that will definitely cause harm. Perhaps the cosmetic in question actually breaks out into cancerous tumors and the rat dies, that would be worse than being tased.
And Ramirez, why are we all of a sudden greater than the rats we experiment on? I feel the vast majority of people who agree experimentation on lab rats is unethical will disagree with you and in fact turn around and say that the rat has never committed an unethical act such as apply cancerous cosmetics to humans and therefore is more morally correct and therefore 'good' than man.

I still believe we should test on animals, but after we run out of criminals.
Murderers and rapists make excellent human subjects just sayin'. They've made their life choices and right there is an opportunity to help humanity.
Also on a sidenote, we should remove all warning labels and safety barriers from public places.

Beloved

Fictionally Destructive

Where ever my master takes me
Seen November 22nd, 2014
Posted November 21st, 2014
253 posts
16 Years
@BadPokemon. You have to think for a second about the cosmetics vs taser thing for a second. You're comparing something that could potentially cause harm with something that will definitely cause harm. Perhaps the cosmetic in question actually breaks out into cancerous tumors and the rat dies, that would be worse than being tased.
And Ramirez, why are we all of a sudden greater than the rats we experiment on? I feel the vast majority of people who agree experimentation on lab rats is unethical will disagree with you and in fact turn around and say that the rat has never committed an unethical act such as apply cancerous cosmetics to humans and therefore is more morally correct and therefore 'good' than man.

I still believe we should test on animals, but after we run out of criminals.
Murderers and rapists make excellent human subjects just sayin'. They've made their life choices and right there is an opportunity to help humanity.
Also on a sidenote, we should remove all warning labels and safety barriers from public places.
You do realize the reason why we don't kill murderers and rapists is because there is always a chance that one of them, despite the evidence, is innocent, right? For example, there is a man in prison in Ohio right now for several convictions of child molestation, yet it is widely known that the guy is innocent. In fact, the nights in question, he wasn't even home, where the offenses allegedly took place. He had several people come to his aid. Even the children's stories were too well rehearsed. However, the judge was pressured into convicting the man because of the connections the mother had. It is one of the most well known cases of corruption in the legal system up there.

And I concur on the safety barriers. It is so annoying when you want to drive into a store to get your coffee, but the rails stop you.

And on topic, I view it this way: if people do not volunteer to test the drugs, then the next logical step would be animals which are overpopulated that still share a close genome to humans.


Mikiebear
FC: Unknown ATM
Friend Safari Type: Unknown
Pokemon: Unknown
PM if you add me so I can add you. Always looking for friends.

acatfrommars

Male
Seen February 5th, 2023
Posted January 9th, 2023
3,870 posts
9.6 Years
It's ethical, if we can cure diseases such as Poleo or Cancer by testing treatments on animals then that is okay. As much as people hate testing on animals, it can be the only way right now to perform the most accurate experiments until more accurate models are created. What would you rather have a new drug tested on: animals or humans? The answer should be obvious.

Yeah, science and ethics are debated in a plethora of way! People debate on carbon dating and evolution. They debate on processes such as embalming and testing on animals. There is debate about religion discussed in school system. There seems to be always something new conflicted with science and ethics or science and religion.