Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. -Charles R. Magel, professor of philosophy
I think that this is a shameful distortion, considering that the source is a professor of philosophy. Experimenters experiment on animals because they can learn things that will be beneficial to humans. (They also experiment on humans in certain ways for the same reason.) It is morally acceptable to experiment on animals because animals are not like us in morally significant ways. What the experimenters say these differences are varies somewhat, but the argument is not nearly as simplistic as the professor puts it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Just because he is a professor of philosophy, doesn't mean he does not know what he is talking about.
Why is it morally acceptable? How are they not like us in morally significant ways?
I think that professors of philosophy should be more careful in their expression of judgment. And many are. Maybe Professor Magel often is, but not, I think, in this case. Animals are different from humans in many ways, though like us in many other ways. The same kinds of differences that make it morally acceptable for us to eat them make it morally acceptable to experiment on them. But, of course, there are properly restraints on how we do either. The key difference between humans and non-human animals is the humans are made in the image and likeness of God.
Charles Magel is CORRECT 1O0% I think hdistel is full of Sh*t!
Thanks, DMG. Very thoughtful.
Humans are made in the image and likeness of God? Words that, by the way, were written by humans....
Humans are the only animals who can write, one of many differences.
I think I'll believe the bible the primates wrote.
Vintage footage of professor Charles R. Magel can be found at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLFTbP00qX0
So you believe it is morally acceptable for animals to be tortured to test that products are safe for human use when, with the technology available to us, such testing is not necessary?
You should do some more research about what actually happens to animals in testing laboratories before posting arguments against someone that, I would assume, is more educated that yourself on the topic.
Animals can feel pain, just like you.
What are the morraly diferent ways that allows human to exploit no human ?
Human can write ?
Well, maybe no human cannot write but many humans can not write. Baby, yound child, adult with mental handicap. What about them ? We can exploit them also as means for different ends ?
The ability to write, the inteligence, the reason are not valid information for moral. Because the important thing is only if a being is sintient. The sientence transform a being in a individual, with a perspetive conscious, and interest. All animals are sintient. So all animals must be considered equally in a moral perspective.
Speciesisim is too injustified like racism or sexism. Think about speciesism please.
Hugs from Marseille.
I do not believe how someone could be so mundane as to think that it is morally OK to test on animals when this testing involves torture and often death. not only is it agonizing but the information is not correct- humans and animals are different enough to not react the same way to diseases and one such error caused millions of birth defects. I'm not particularly angry at hdistel, but instead feel pity for how this person has been brought up to think in any such way as you have just demonstrated.
Post a Comment