Human vs animal testing

I'm saying if a family is okay with it that I don't find a moral problem with experimentation on humans that are only as self-aware as a chimp or less so. If the individuals brain is the functional equivilent of an ape, i'm not sure why we should value the human above the ape. Because they are human? thats speciest. (given that theres no potential cures for their condition)

We think its acceptable to test on chimps because their not conscious in a way that humans are, if they were, i wouldn't support it. I support medical testing on chimps for the same reason I do mentally challenged humans. (only if they are mentally challenged to the point of a chimp)

That depends on what you define value as. Does a fully conscious human have more value than a barely conscious ape? I'd say so, but my definition of value in this situation may be different than another persons.

I guess it would be scientists attempting to decide how self aware the individual was.

Very few mental patients are chimplike.

most of them are still self aware.If you support chimp animal testing my question is why wouldn't you support animal testing on humans that have the same level of intelligence and self-awareness as chimps. I don't think the fact that the person is human means a whole hell of a lot, and if we found a super-intelligent chimp, I would also say that it shouldn't be used for animal testing.

 

I would have to say that it probably should be around chimp-level self-awareness and intelligence. I wouldn't feel comfortable testing on somthing much more self-aware than a chimp, infact comfortable isn't exactly the word i'd use to describe how i feel about chimp animal testing, comfortable enough to accept that it acomplishes a greater good might be more accurate.

Another problem with this whole issue is that you'd have to create a criteria for deciding how self-aware somthing is and thats not easy business.

i'm saying that we need animal testing before you can attempt treatments on humans, the chimp-like-mentally-handicapped-human would just take the place of another chimp in the 'animal testing' phase. I'm not sayign we should force parents to give up challenged children, I just don't see a moral problem with doing it if the entire family consented.

 

I think we should do medical testing on non-voters.

Fuck 'em, they don't contribute either.

 

There are a number of problems. One being that alot of parents might just not want to deal with the having a retarded kid, even one like forest gump that can function the in human society.

See a idea like that relies on the idea that human society is worth more than the indivual. Its a great concept but only really works if we all buy into it, and well its pretty obvious that not all of us do.

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I'm not suggesting that it should be acceptable to experiment on anyone with a mental handicap, the overwhelming majority of handicapped people are leaps and bounds ahead of chimps in terms of self-awareness and consciousness.

Listen, all i'm saying is that we experiment on chimps which do have some vistage of self-awareness and conscious, even if its only to a very very rudimentary and elementary way. All i'm saying is that if we do this to chimps and we find it morally justifiable because of A (A being the only sensical way to morally justify it) than we have to admit that A is still justifiable if A also happens to be human.The reason we can accept experimenting on chimps is not because their chimps, its because their not self-aware or conscious in the way that humans are and we deem the price of experimenting on them justifiable on those grounds. A human with the mental capabilities of a chimp is for all practical purposes, a chimp.A chimpanzee is the same individual as a person who is only mentally as capable as a chimp, we sacrafice individuals all the time for human progress, the only noticable difference is that a human is a human and a chimp is a chimp, and thats not a difference that should remotely factor into decision making. Its a type of bigotry.A chimp is an individual, and if the human individual is as self-aware, conscious and intelligent as a chimp, than their equal individuals.The only arguement that I can even see is that human rights apply for all humans, so we all have a reason to want them to be upheld, but theres somthing dreadfully inconsistant about giving humans with chimp like intelligence rights, while chimps get nothing at all. Not to mention morally justifying self interest is sketchy at best.

 

I get what you're saying completely. I'm just pointing out flaws with that type of thinking. I had that same thought a few weeks ago, and recently came up with the response, which is basically how in the world do draw the line if not at the edge of your speices?

 

This all comes down to what we consider a person?

A philosophical debate that has gone unresolved for millennia.

 

I think the reason we won't test on humans is because of a natural affinity towards our own kind, we don't have that for apes. I really wouldn't care if a severely retarded person was tested on, but I enjoy retarded people as people. If they can't talk or do much else-- then they really aren't much.

 

I think this is a lot more about how we and why we justify experimentation that what constitutes a person. Philosophical arguements aside consciousness/intelligence/self-awareness are measurable in some ways, so whether or not somthing is a person or not their levels of intelligence/self-awareness/consciousness can be judged.If a nonperson is as conscious as a person I don't think the nonperson should be treated differently. I don't think thats what this issue is really about.

 

Its a no brainer trust me, we're not killing or torturing so many apes as humans are dying from thousands of different conditions and illnesses, etc etc.

 

Wow, so your saying that a if a member of species A has the exact functional equivilent in consciousness as species B the deciding factor should be decided based on species. Its amazing that you actually think that isn't a form of horrible bigotry. Its reeks of specism, this is the exact kind of discontinous mind that dawkins speaks about; perhaps i could link you to the article?

It doesn't open the flood-gates to anything. Experimenting on humans who have the exact type of consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence as an chimp is morally indistinguishable from doing it on a chimp. indistinguishable that is besides a pretty flimsy specism arguement.Please explain to me exactly what this unqiuely human quality is. Just because you can convince someone of B doesn't mean it'll make them more liekly to accept C or B.1 or whatever. And besides even if it would never work in practice, it is still the exact same as treating an ape that way.So please, what makes the human species the defining facor when all other attributes are equal. Thats bigotryyyyy

We do it to apes and the only difference is its a different species. (IF all who know the person didn't mind) We do it because we justify the risk. Now explain the moral difference without envoking the mere fact that one is human. Does one suffer more? Is one more aware? more emotionally complex? etc etc. Explain to me the rational moral difference.

Than you're simply not being consistantly rational until you can explain the moral difference here, and i'm not talking about monkeys, i'm talking about apes. WHAT IS THE RATIONAL DIFFERENCE WITHOUT APPEALS TO EMOTION ZYLARK?
species bigotry isn't okay, haha.
morality without rationality is usually the domain of religion. Perhaps i'm wrong though, i'd like to see an explanation.

 

[AK suspecting that atheist is cannibalizing atheist peeks his handsome nose through the door.]​

Interesting, I actually think I like this, Zylark chief opponent to those who believe in "God" being rattled by a strange "unknown" upstart. Hmmmmmm... Before anyone posts again can I get a couple minutes to roast a bowl then come back?​

But if not by all means, please continue. Logic is factual and fun ...​

Whatever.​

[AK slowly closes the door when he sees each atheist with bloody chunks in their mouths.]​

 

theres a lot of fancy scientific techniques and brain imaging that can be done to get a general idea of how their brain works.

So what? its irrational bigotry.

And I asked you why empathy and compassion shouldn't be equally distributed to two individuals of a different species when their exact mental mirrors of each other.

Two traits inconsistantly applied with the criteria being only a species label. Perhaps you could explain how thats not irrational bigotry or bigotry due to emotional appeal, and perhaps you could explain the rational difference between them if both individuals have the same capabilities.

 

Gee whiz I was just teasing bro, and having a little fun cuz I'm high. By all means go out and remain the solid, steady, and logical Zylark we've all come to love.

Stay green.