Tuesday, September 18, 2007
human expermintation
in class it was said that the animals were breed specifically for the labs. so it wasn't as bad as if they were taken from the forest. even though animal experimentation really does nothing for human research. and to use humans for this type of work was not morally correct. but what if humans were breed so that they were solely used for human experimentation. would it be wrong even though they have no idea of that their was a world that outside that lab.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yes, it is still wrong. It is not their state of mind about the experimentation that matters, it is ours. Knowing that this is a life we are taking advantage of delegates a moral action regardless of the cognizance of that which we are manipulating.
If that is true, and I believe it to be so, then why infact does animal research continue? It is because they feign some purpose or ideology behind their research. And the only way to expose this wrong is to grow humans in labs (probably the singular case where two ethical wrongs make a right). This would make things right because people would expose the inequity and the ethical wrongs being committed and then parallels will become clear to the general public that we are animals too and that we can be treated as such. So, by doing this I think that strong emotional support in addition with the ethical foundation that this type of testing is wrong will be the only way to change the system that is animal testing.
I don't think growing humans will fix the vivisection problem.
If we create a creature capable of suffering at our hands, we create at the same time the duty to avoid harming that creature.
Post a Comment