The following question is cribbed from a philosophy for young people site called Wondering Aloud, still some of the questions are worth discussing regardless of age. They pose a question about animal rights vs medical research thusly:
You have a little sister who is very sick. The only way to save her is to inject many kittens with the illness she has and experiment with various medicines to see if they will work. What should the doctors do? Do animals have a right to life? Are we justified in using them in experiments?
Thoughts?
I'd be interested in hearing from b_b, mk, organicAnt, OftenBen and of course, the rest of you.
For me, the answer is easy and I'll gladly discuss my thinking in the comments.
Edit: Also, this could potentially be an emotionally loaded topic, but I'm sure we can have a civil discussion.
Gonna dodge the question and merely point out the many angles you can pick it apart and analyze it from... You could look at the numbers, or ratio of numbers: Are fifty kittens' lives worth it to save one human's? A kitty for a kid? A kitty for a thousand kids? Somewhere in there, the line gets blurred. If not only for practical reasons, I think most people would be uncomfortable with sacrificing a million kitties for one person (But of course, the human being a child or an elderly may also change where that blur begins and ends). You could look at the effect of injection: Will the kitties pee blue? Or are they expected to undergo agonizing pain after the injection. Is there care set up for any complications or unexpected effects? Is this a sacrifice or a stress-response? You could look at the importance of the hypothesis: Are you testing a cure for HIV or are you getting an antibody against one minor target in preparation of a study characterizing the biochemistry of one its less-conserved proteins. You could look at the origin of the animal's life: A stray street cat may be more readily sacrificed than one of Paris Hilton's beloved pets. Yet even that is considered more predatory than a cat that was raised in a lab with the specific purpose of testing. Or even a sick animal that is already destined to be put down (Ignoring again the impracticality of testing on already-sick animals). You could look at the species: No one has problem testing on E. coli or viruses or yeast. Even zebrafish are rarely discussed. Yet as you move closer to humans, people get more uncomfortable. Mammals? Up for discussion, controversy generally starts here. Large mammals? Even more controversial. Large mammals with large brains? Well you gotta admit that pigs are pretty cute when you get to know them. Monkeys? Hell, is there even a benefit to studying that species instead of humans? Mice ain't humans, dogs ain't humans, and even monkeys ain't humans. Our bodies are different and many animal studies are meant to inform and prepare follow-up questions targeting human biology. And then as we descend into human research for human benefit, we start examining the social context surrounding the research, too. Who is it costing, who is it benefiting? How informed is the consent? What is the urgency of the question being studied? Every study is a conglomerate of all of these components, making an answer to "a kitty for a kid" somewhat poorly representative of the larger distribution of contexts to animal studies.
I have thought about and discussed this question, and mostly am commenting only to point out that clearly, kittens in this example were chosen precisely to evoke an emotional reaction from the people discussing this situation (as opposed to something like even the medical viability of experimenting on kittens and extrapolating those results to humans). If the animal in question were instead chickens, I would gladly kill them all. Or- I mean - experiment on them.
Good point, they could have chosen mosquitos and it would be a very different conversation. Still a living creature though.
thundara has made an excellent point about perspectives. That's really how things like this should be thought of. I spent half the summer considering similar problems like Savior Children (Born to donate organs/tissue to sick siblings), Black Market Organ trades, and all sorts of similar issues. As much as some perspectives may cause uproar or personal disgust, they are objectively no different from any others.(Usually) By my estimation, there is no number of cats worth the life of a person dear to me. I would beg and plead for alternatives, I would offer myself before I would offer any other organism if such a thing were possible. It is not an easy decision, but a choice. I choose the health and safety of those I love over quite a lot else.
It all depends upon what 'justified' means. Would you rather your little sister to suffer and die, or many kittens? I'd pick the kittens. I value my little sister more than kittens. There is no right or wrong here, there is only opinion. Also, the basis for that opinion is not entirely rational. Questions like this are important to ask, but they will not reveal some greater truth, or even be a reliable guide for the future. Still, it's important that they are asked frequently, because our answers may change over time. Of course, I've written on this topic.
Right. The fact of the matter is that most research is done in vain, leading nowhere, but destroying many animals in the process. We can quibble about whether that's salient or not, but it must be considered in the calculus. There's pretty much no disease research that proceeds by the process presented in the question above. Even though it's ostensibly for kids, I think it's giving children a wrong impression to assume that there are only two outcomes to be had. The world has many shades of gray, and I think even children can appreciate some of them if given the opportunity.
This is an interesting ethics exercise. I'm sure that in today's dominant view of humanity vs nature relationship, few will see any dilemma in this question. For most a human life is far more important than any amount of lives of other species. The interesting exercise in this conundrum is to question, why is it that we feel this way? What makes a human being's life worth more than any amount of other beings? Why do we feel superior? Are we worth more because we're more self-aware or more conscious (if we can prove scientifically that this is actually true of course)? Maybe being anthropocentric is simply a hard-wired survival instinct of self-preservation of the species? I know that if I had to choose between the life of a close one and the life of an animal I'd of course choose the human animal. The truth of the matter is that this particular example is an extreme and rare situation, which covers a tiny percentage of all animal suffering and which in reality it's not something that (fortunately) many of us have to worry about. And as all extreme and rare cases, perhaps it should be treated as the exception. On the other hand, if we're going to have an honestly concerned evaluation of animal rights, would it not make sense that we start with the primary source of suffering? You know, the subjugation, farming and slaughtering of millions of beings, for meat, furs, leathers, cosmetics, all of which are no longer necessary for the survival of 21st century Homo-sapiens (or "wise" man). There are plenty of lifestyle choices that we make on a daily basis, which may or may not contribute to very real animal suffering going on right now. To name a few, what I eat, what I wear, what entertainment I choose, are simple decisions which everyone can make based on individual ethical awareness and concern. If we tackle the easier ethics problem first - justifying the main source of animal abuse as a means for human comfort and pleasure - perhaps we'll be better equipped to deal with the exceptions of animal abuse, such as the one of when a human life depends on it.
I do not disagree that life should be given more respect. However, where do we draw the line? What is considered a precious life? Is a worms life precious? If so, what about a machine that emulates the "consciousness" of a worm? Is it now precious and worth protecting?. Is it no longer a "machine?" There is an interesting convergence between this question posed here and the post I link to. There are going to be some interesting ethical questions for us moving forward.
Those are good questions that deserve some deep thinking and very honest answers. I think the easiest way to arrive at the answers is to look at the motivations behind the ending of a life. Whatever life it may be. Why are we killing the worm? Is it for a noble cause or a selfish one? I believe the motivation behind every action should be the method of valuing if that action was worth its cause. In the case of the conscious killing of a being, however small, you have to ask what have we gained? Was the sacrifice worth it? Most importantly, was it necessary?
Would you apply the same reasoning and questions to the ending of a machine that emulates the consciousness of a worm?
That question is about consciousness though, not about life. And certainly not about suffering or the right to exist or anything we associate with terminating an existing thing.
I admit this isn't something which I have dedicated much time researching or thinking about. I'm way more concerned about reducing current existing suffering. But my first impression is, why not? If we value humans because of the arguably higher consciousness, I don't see why we should have double standards for AI.
Because we don't understand it? You have nerves in your hands or feet (I don't know the exact number, but suppose it's more than in all of the worm under discussion). But amputations are not considered destruction of consciousness. Hell, if consciousness is the result of any large enough spacial pattern, it may be enough that the particles in a liquid are thoughts created and destroyed. A crowd of enough humans may be enough to form a primitive, "higher" consciousness. This same question extends to the electrons in a computer circuit. They may be enough to represent a consciousness, or they may not be. No one has a clue.If we value humans because of the arguably higher consciousness, I don't see why we should have double standards for AI.
Fair point. I don't put aside the possibility that consciousness may exist outside of the brain. In which case it may be wise to use the precautionary principle and approach all of existence with respect, until we figure out what actually is, this thing we call consciousness.Hell, if consciousness is the result of any large enough spacial pattern, it may be enough that the particles in a liquid are thoughts created and destroyed. A crowd of enough humans may be enough to form a primitive, "higher" consciousness.
I think there are really two ways to answer this. The first way is statistically, economically, ethically, mathematically, pragmatically, what have you. The answer to that is going to be "it depends." Too many opinions, too many options, too many factors, too many truths, too many lies. It'll always depend. The second way is morally and the only person with any standing to choose is your sister. Don't think she's mature enough to choose? Then it's the person morally responsible for her.
For me this answer is pretty simple, and is whichever answer has the least suffering. That depends on how painful said illness is, how long it lasts before death, is it contagious? how contagious? and what can be done to reduce suffering on the kittens, and what suffering would the death of the kittens cause, and what about my sister? I don't think anyone has a right to life, infact (I hope this doesn't put me in an asylum) but if given the choice to detonate a terraton or whatever goes after megaton nuclear device killing everyone, and without risk, I would destroy the entire human race.Do animals have a right to life?
Except it's true. No human being inherently has right to anything. The only time we have rights is as defined by what society gives to us and what we give to others. I give others the right to not be attacked, to be stolen from, etc, on the assumption they will not do the same to me. (once you boil it down to the bare essentials, at least. In reality things like empathy come into play)
Sorry, I don't think I worded it right... I'm not actively seeking to kill people or anything, I meant that if we all died instantly, I don't think anyone would be at loss.
People who were permanently suffering woudn't have to suffer anymore and those who enjoyed life wouldn't have a functioning brain to miss anything. I mean it's just my opinion that the world would be better off dead, it's not my life goal to kill everyone :P
I didn't think you meant you had any interest in killing. The point is that if you are indifferent enough to the thoughts and feelings of others that you would have no problem ending civilization, then you may be severely antisocial or depressed. Nihilism is a disease, IMO.
Because I think I read you hate GIFs I am refraining from posting a Big Lebowski clip. Also, I suppose it is not particularly thought-provoking or relevant. My streak of never posting a GIF to Hubski (that I can remember - someone correct me if I am wrong, but I would be surprised) continues!