Options exist in place of animal testing, entertainment

Do you think scientists really like dealing with all the red-tape of animal testing? Better question, do you picture research labs as some sort of freaky S&M dungeon where MSU employees are “cutting them open and pumping them full of toxic substances simply because we can overpower them?”

Shame on you State News for egging on this “controversy.”

I never held PETA members and animal rights activist in the highest esteem, but the letters and comments submitted regarding this issue have lowered my opinion even more. Nothing but lies, strawman arguments and a complete refusal to address points made by the opposing side. State News, please let this issue rest.

What people need to realize is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with using animals to further human purposes. They are here for us to eat, to wear, to use for work and entertainment and to better humanity through research. There are two ways of looking at things: One is that we are simply another species of animals, in which case anything we do with animals is natural and really no different from a cat eating a mouse. The other is that we are in fact above animals in some way (mainly that we have souls), in which case there is nothing wrong with us using them to better ourselves

well said mat. i’m glad someone took this argument to it’s logical conclusion.

There’s definitely a trend among those in favor of animal exploitation, besides a lack of empathy, and it hinges on a presumed superiority. Dan assumes that scientists feel testing animals is a necessary evil with every alternative considered. Tim is still held up on PETA’s misrepresentation of Dr Weber’s experimentation methods. disgusted and tired acts on people’s personal situations in lieu of grasping the systematic problem.

Mat, however, is the best of all because he loves being a human, as evident by his endorsement of “animal inferiority”, and claims pseudo-religiously that animals are here for humans. There are more ways than simply two of looking at this. In addition to your illogical rationalization of it being “natural”, you forget that the difference between non-human and human animals is that we can rationally choose whether to consume animals or not. The difference doesn’t give us more right to live, it just allows us to conceive of morality, yet it hasn’t functioned too well thus far. And your second point is stunning, I can’t begin to argue against Him.

I have tried to point out these trends before, but people would rather consider this issue a “conspiracy” and lies than attempt to think for themselves. Congratulations Humanity.

Fredrik,

Morals can be based upon logic, but they are first and foremost beliefs. Most people believe that eating and researching on animals is either a necessary evil or just plain tasty.

And just because you choose to not eat animals doesn’t mean you are doing it rationally. The assumption that animals (or people for that matter) is not really a rational assumption. It is an assumption based upon love, kindness, and faith in spirit. However, in the grand scheme of things, we all will die anyways. So to say that something has an inherent right to live is actually a fairly irrational statement.

It only becomes rational because of the benefits of humans not killing each other, or of humans not over killing a species, of the incredible charity it takes and puts upon a being to not cause harm. However, harm and death are inherent to all life forms. So you argument that there is no acceptable reason to kill animals is fairly silly. We have a symbiotic relationship with them, and on some level it is only natural to put our benefit before theirs.

I’m a liberal hippie, but that doesn’t mean everything I believe is true. That’s what makes beliefs what they are- the inescapable truth that their is no correct answer.

Frederik – Your argument that I believe in animal inferiority is similar to that of Steven Law when he discusses the idea of being a “speciest”. And it’s a title I proudly claim. The idea that animals have rights in the first place is ludicrous. While I presented the “just another animal” argument because some people believe that and I wished to refute it, I believe wholeheartedly that, while scientifically we are in the animal kingdom, we are superior to other animals. We are a higher state of being than they are. We have souls. We can reason. We (or at least most of us) acknowledge a system of morality. Some people claim the idea of a different system of morality (subjective rather than objective), but their beliefs don’t change the universal absolutes of right and wrong, absolutes that place humankind above other animals.

Compromise- all those things already happen. There are rules in place and those rules require looking for methods to replace animal testing. However, that still isn’t enough to appease PETA or to convince people that scientists aren’t doing these experiments for kicks.
Fredrick- I have rationally thought about this issue and have come to a different conclusion than you have.

Because clearly animal testing is what is ruining our environment…

I don’t even think Cheney could pull that one off, and he connected Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

There’s nothing morally wrong with killing a cow for food. It’s really that simple. Humans are omnivores (for those playing the home game, that means we eat both meat and veggies) and cannot survive realistically on veggies alone. I understand that there are those of you who do not wish to consume animals, which is fine. However, kindly keep your opinions to yourselves and stop trying to play the morality police.

Yeah I’m playing the morality police, for good reason, but maybe I’m just hoping one day I can play the karma police.

Jacob, I’m glad to see some philosophical writing for a change; finally something I can respond to with intelligence. The morality I’m advocating is based on logic, as is the same morality the hypocrites who consume animals claim to sanction. In the grand scheme of things, I agree with you. I don’t believe there is an inherent right to live, or what say you, but that would be closer to an objective quality of the world, viz., cause and effect (big bang, evolution, etc). Some people use this to justify speciesism, but it’s simply a justification for everything. I could do anything and use cause and effect to justify it, and likewise the same could be done to me and it would be justified, but alas it would contradictory, and thus the world of morality is necessary (social contract anyone?). Morality is created by humans, but that also gives us the ability to “right” and wrong”. Here’s a quote that sums it up very nicely:

“The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his
intellectual superiority to other creatures; but the fact that
he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority
to any creature that cannot.” [Mark Twain, What Is Man

and Mat, your assumptions are irrational, that is, without reason. To justify speciesism on the notion of a “soul” is absurd. What would you think if I justified harming you based on that idea? Get the idea?