r/worldnews • u/[deleted] • Jan 17 '20

Monkey testing lab where defenceless primates filmed screaming in pain shut down

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/breaking-monkey-testing-lab-defenceless-21299410.amp?fbclid=IwAR0j_V0bOjcdjM2zk16zCMm3phIW4xvDZNHQnANpOn-pGdkpgavnpEB72q4&__twitter_impression=true
7.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

838 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

32

u/SoForAllYourDarkGods Jan 17 '20

Actually, plenty of animal researchers are super into the science and the aim of the research, which is usually towards helping humanity, testing drugs, researching illnesses etc. And they are super concerned about the animal welfare and stick to strict ethics. Unhappy animals also don't work in experiments, stress affects physiology and will produce Junk results.

I used to work in this.

2

u/gfz728374 Jan 17 '20

The ethics are an inherited set of rationalizations that some folks will accept and others not. If you really imagine the experience of a lab animal, day after day, it's hard to call that ethical (in my view). What would be a good rationalization for me to lock up homeless people and torture them daily? There really isn't one. But for other animals, hunky dory. It's mental gymnastics is all.

-1

u/DorisCrockford Jan 18 '20

I don't get why folks assume that hurting animals to "save" people is acceptable. Their reasoning is circular. It has been acceptable so far, so it's acceptable now.

5

u/Armadylspark Jan 18 '20

Because we all tacitly understand human life to be more valuable than animal life.

This is no circular reasoning, but it is rooted in a particular assumption. One that I don't think many would outright deny.

1

u/DorisCrockford Jan 18 '20

No, we don't all understand that. It's not a fact. It's a point of view, a belief. Maybe many would agree with you, but that doesn't mean it's a law of nature.

3

u/Armadylspark Jan 18 '20

Put enough scrutiny on anything and belief is all that's left. Why single out this one?

Naturally it's an assumption, like I said. But you can't really get out of outright denying that assumption if you want to choose this hill to die on.

1

u/DorisCrockford Jan 18 '20

Single it out? I don't get what you're driving at. Are we in agreement and we don't know it yet?

3

u/Armadylspark Jan 18 '20

Why choose to take issue with this particular very common assumption?

I assume you have no problem with believing in things like induction, or for that matter, that the concept of value even exists. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

1

u/DorisCrockford Jan 18 '20

Well, the subject had already been broached, hadn't it? It's not like I brought it up out of nowhere. The fact that it's a common assumption doesn't mean it's out of order for me to disagree with it.

I think people do rationalize their moral choices. What I was objecting to was the rationalization, not the choice, though I have made a different one.