Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 14:38:38
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2005, at 9:10:52
> "Would it be okay for someone about to be euthanised to be anesthatised first so some med student could practice on them before putting them to sleep?"
> That is, obviously, not the same question. If the human euthanasia were voluntary they would have the ability to answer that question first.Ah, so because animals can't talk we should just assume that they give their consent???
(PS I think the answer to your question and the answer to the above question is the same. Thats why I included it)
> If it were involuntary then there are so many other immoral(amoral) things going on (we usually call it murder) and the people doing the killing aren't likely to think twice.Yes. Though I am sure the animals have an interest in living too???
> It is a bit more grey when it comes to animals. Or at least it will be until pet owners become more responsible about unfettered reproduction.Well...
Is it fair to disadvantage animals because they are unable to explicitly say that they would prefer not to be killed to be eaten? Or killed at all really?
One thing Singer argued for (in the above posts) is that if something is sentient then it should have its interests taken into account. Sentient beings have interests such as the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Is it too anthropomorphic to assume that animals have an interest in those things?
He maintains that something with comperable sentience should be considered to have comperable interests. These should be taken into account comperably.
It is surely safe to assume that a monkey or a dog or a cat or a pig or a cow or a sheep is sentient in a comperable way to a retarded human infant.
Singer thinks that because there is a comperable degree of sentience they should be taken into account in a comperable manner.
Sure, some of the experiments on animals are worthwhile. But to 'pick on' animals by disregarding their interests to use them in comparatively trivial experiments and eating them etc JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT HUMAN is speciest.
When considering whether the experiment is justified we should ask ourselves 'would it be acceptable to perform the experiment on a retarded human being'. If it is justified in this case then it would be justified to use animals.
If we actually did this the research that would be performed on animals would be a fraction of what it is today...
It is clearer here.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050215/msgs/461882.html
And here I try to argue that he isn't just calling people names when he calls the majority of people 'speciest'.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050215/msgs/461535.html
poster:alexandra_k
thread:461535
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/466004.html