The moral difference, I suppose, is that now we have the choice. In the past, subsistence living meant we took what we could to survive. Omniverous lifestyles were fairly essential. Now, most people in the West have the choice to eat meat or not, and can still live a healthy and long life. My choice is to eat meat. I enjoy eating meat, and if that makes me a bad person in the eyes of vegetarians, then I accept their right to think I'm a bad person, and will continue to eat meat. And although I'm not in favour of needless cruelty to animals, I would consider myself vaguely pro-test, because, being the human chauvanist that I am, I value human life above animal life. This is both a rational and an irrational opinion. It's rational in the sense that, broadly speaking, it may be natural to value things you identify with over things you are more distanced from. It is irrational in the sense that we are all equally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, none of us really matter, and when our sun blows up, it'll all be gone anyway. Human beings are not objectively more important than animals. But subjectively, I place more value on a human life than that of an animal....
Hahaha! I'm sorry, but animal testing is VITAL for war's and famines. Medication is a vital necessity for both, and without animal testing alot of them would not be available. Without animal testing not even blood donation could be possible.
honeyfugle, I proper respect your views, I would put my life above a animal (non-human) but i wouldnt kill it needlessly, i'm a vegitarian, but in answer to what Peace-Phoenix said, if people think you are a bad person, because of that choice they really shouldn't be on the forums. But animals arent the only reason i'm veggie, it helps humans too (http://hippy.com/article-24.html) on there it says about how much rainforeset is being cut down, and that we are giving animals food (thats no bad but doing it to kill them and eat them is) instead of people
What do you mean by vital though? If all those people died due to lack of animal testing, what would it matter in the cosmic scheme of things, other than the Earth's natural resources would be less stretched? As for the blood donation, we've been donating for decades, i cannot believe that there is no alternative to animal testing regarding that. It sounds like nonsense. Any more info? Just so you know, i appreciate what animal testing has done for people, but to be honest i'd be a lot happier if humanity were simply willing to accept their natural lot in life and die when fate decides.
what really annoys me in these ethical debates, is the idealistic 'in this situation I wouldn't do this' I have much more respect for people who actually say, I WAS in this situation, and I didn't do it. studies and history have shown time and time again that when push comes to shove that human beings tend to put themselves first and I'm talking about perfectly oridanry human beings. if there was only room for one person on a boat, I hope to god I would sacrifice myself so my best friend could live, but would I? well I'll only really know when it happens, which I hope it doesn't. going back to the topic, if I became diabetic, and my body rejected human insulin, I know full well, I wouldn't say no to animal insulin. even though I'm veggie, my need to have a good quality of life and to live and not die, over rides what I believe to be ethically right when I am well S
Very true. And as Freud argued, when we are ill we gain an all powerful sense of narcissism over and above all else....
Couldn't agree more. It would take an immensely strong willpower to overcome that inbuilt sense of self preservation for moral reasons. It is programmed into us as it is all animals. If it wasn't, we would not have survived as a species....
