Science & Cruelty to animals (2 Viewers)

[aussiechica7]

kfunk

what is your belief in regards to animals that kill/eat other animals?

is it ok because they're only killing what they need?

is it ok because their consciousness is not sufficiently developed to decide not to? could they even survive on vegetarian diets?

and how does this relate to whether or not we should eat meat (e.g. if animals can eat other animals so long as they're not killing more than they need, can't we do it too? why are there different rules for humans and other animals?)

sorry if these seem like silly questions from my untrained philosophical mind lol

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

actually about the images in pathology..
it depends how well u are exposed and train..

with images u can do it.. but u need to like do it for 3-4yrs.. its no easy task

 

[kimmeh]

actually about the images in pathology..
it depends how well u are exposed and train..

with images u can do it.. but u need to like do it for 3-4yrs.. its no easy task

Pathology images of microscpoe slides, yes, but not of gross findings.

Images are 2D. Pathology is 3D.

 

[KFunk]

kfunk

what is your belief in regards to animals that kill/eat other animals?

is it ok because they're only killing what they need?

is it ok because their consciousness is not sufficiently developed to decide not to? could they even survive on vegetarian diets?

and how does this relate to whether or not we should eat meat (e.g. if animals can eat other animals so long as they're not killing more than they need, can't we do it too? why are there different rules for humans and other animals?)

sorry if these seem like silly questions from my untrained philosophical mind lol

Aussie chica sent the above message to me in a PM and, upon revisiting this thread, I realised that the same questions were here as well. Given how long my response was I figured that I may as well post it up here as well... sorry for the length:

Thanks for the interesting questions. I'll start with a few things which will help to clarify my position:

• Most essentially I am a moral skeptic. By this I mean that I believe that there does not exist an objective foundation for moral belief. In other words, ethics is matter of individual preferences, not of objective truth.
• When it comes to animals I am not bothered by killing so much as 'pain-causing'. My personal moral stance is that to be in pain is to have a negative experience and that we should prevent/minimise painful experiences.
• I am also highly skeptical of free will, making me loathe to assign traits of moral badness to beings/creatures. I prefer to refer to acts/outcomes as morally bad rather than the agents who caused them.

So, given the above, how do I feel about animals eating animals? Well, for starters, I certainly prefer vegetarian animals . I do not have an issue with one animal killing another if it does not cause pain, however pain will be suffered in most cases. One way to look at it is in terms of the net biological system. In some cases if a species populates too much then you get overpopulation and painful deaths (starvation, disease etc) as a result. It is plausible that a carnivorous species may actually lessen the net amount of pain experienced by controlling population numbers. Basically, for me to say whether certain animal interactions are 'bad' depends on whether their net effect on pain experience is a positive, or a negative one.

In short, we would need some kind of 'pain calculus' for me to judge whether an act is truly good or bad. Nonetheless, I can still feel that a certain act of animal-animal killing is bad when viewed as a closed system. My ultimate ethical goal would, of course, be to minimise the number of events which appear bad when viewed as a closed system.

Do I see the animals themselves as bad? No, on the grounds of the dubious nature of free will, and, as you pointed out, because most animals lack the cognitive development required to make a moral judgement. I cannot rationally hold the belief that 'animals do the wrong thing when they eat meat' because I think they lack the sophistication that would allow obligations to apply to them in a sensible way. Hypothetically I think the world would be better if it were purely vegetarian, but this is impossible of course (in the practical sense of impossibility).

That I excuse animals does not mean that I excuse humans. Put simply, humans have the capacity for moral judgement as well as the capacity to maintain a successful vegetarian diet. One strong reason I have for thinking more people should be vegetarian is that many of us respect the rule that 'pain is bad'. Many people think it is wrong to cause animals pain, and if they were requested to raise an animal in the way many factory animals are raised then I think they would refuse. I think these people live in hypocrisy and choose to remain ignorant of the truth for their own convenience (I too love meat!).

As to those who do not hold beliefs which imply that causing animals pain is wrong... well, I face an impasse there. Given that I do not acknowledge any objective source of morality I cannot truly claim that "it is objectively wrong to hurt animals", and so I am left with the claim "that I believe it is wrong to hurt animals".

I hope I managed to answer your questions in the above (sorry for the lengthy reply!). If you have any other questions or want me to clarify any of the above then feel free to PM me. All the best,

KFunk

 

[ViRtUaL]

i see you have a very narrow train of though. why are you doing med?

because i care for humans, not insignificant animals. i mean if it were dogs, cats, monkeys, cows, etc. i would feel reluctant to experiment on them, because these animals exhibit far more "human" qualities, e.g. love for offspring, pain, conscious thought (primitive though it may be). but rats and cane toads are just biological niches, just another step in the food chain. i would have no reluctance in killing one with my bare hands.

 

[watatank]

because i care for humans, not insignificant animals. i mean if it were dogs, cats, monkeys, cows, etc. i would feel reluctant to experiment on them, because these animals exhibit far more "human" qualities, e.g. love for offspring, pain, conscious thought (primitive though it may be). but rats and cane toads are just biological niches, just another step in the food chain. i would have no reluctance in killing one with my bare hands.

it's ok, you already got into the medicine degree, this isn't the interview room any more. you can tell us your real intentions. :rofl: really, why? it's the money, its the parentals....it's the parentals isn't it?!

 

[velox]

He does it for reasons like this:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=60176&rss=yes

Or this:

http://www.wave.com.au/WAVELENGTH/jsp/c_jobadvertising.jsp?elementID=898

 

[KFunk]

because i care for humans, not insignificant animals. i mean if it were dogs, cats, monkeys, cows, etc. i would feel reluctant to experiment on them, because these animals exhibit far more "human" qualities, e.g. love for offspring, pain, conscious thought (primitive though it may be). but rats and cane toads are just biological niches, just another step in the food chain. i would have no reluctance in killing one with my bare hands.

What, in your view, makes an animal 'significant' or worthy of moral concern?

 

[velox]

watatank and velox, i'm sure u both may have had money as yur primary concern and unyielding parent pressure, but seeing as neither of u are even in med, u dont accuse others of having the same intentions and experience with their parents.

in fact, wat r u even doing on a med forum watatank? yur uai and degree has nothing to do with medicine. u probably didnt even get an interview, so dont talk as if u know wat goes on in the interview room. fuck off.

if i was after money, i would have gone into comm/law with a 50 grand scholarship under me. and my parents couldnt give a shit wat i did, as long as it wasnt arts or nursing or some shit.

and kfunk, i think animals worthy of moral concern must exhibit a certain level of "human qualities" like i mentioned. it is ofcorse a subjective decision, but rats and cane taods are more biological machinery than any sort of sentient conscious animal.

dude relax, i was taking the piss. must be all the exam stress on you

You're just as bad, assuming that my parents are making me do med, and im going in for the money since im going for trading at a prop shop lolz. If you were smart (which you are), you would pick med over com/law for the money. Easier to make money in med safely that through com law.

Ironic, you're studying to be a doctor, yet you saying nursing is a shit degree.... Respect goes both ways!

 

[KFunk]

and kfunk, i think animals worthy of moral concern must exhibit a certain level of "human qualities" like i mentioned. it is ofcorse a subjective decision, but rats and cane taods are more biological machinery than any sort of sentient conscious animal.

Are you unbothered if a rat experiences pain (granting that it can do so)? Given the structural similarity between a rat and a human (we do, after all, exploit this fact when we test drugs), does it really seem that big a leap to suppose that a rat can feel pain?

 

[watatank]

watatank and velox, i'm sure u both may have had money as yur primary concern and unyielding parent pressure, but seeing as neither of u are even in med, u dont accuse others of having the same intentions and experience with their parents.

in fact, wat r u even doing on a med forum watatank? yur uai and degree has nothing to do with medicine. u probably didnt even get an interview, so dont talk as if u know wat goes on in the interview room. fuck off.

if i was after money, i would have gone into comm/law with a 50 grand scholarship under me. and my parents couldnt give a shit wat i did, as long as it wasnt arts or nursing or some shit.

look i apologise for the comment made, i wasn't being *that* serious. i know too many people who went for medicine for the wrong reasons (finished/doing the degree or simply missed out) and those with pushy parents and the like so i have a cynical view at times. it overshadows those i do know who genuinely want to d med

i'll simply add that you should not underestimate nursing. they genuinely care about humans too. as much as you do. :uhhuh:

 

[SpLaTHoWA]

meh, get the idea that humans are cruel and ruthless by basic nature into your head and you'll drop all these notions of animal ethics and the like.

face it, if you believe in evolution then humans haven't come all this way by being nice to animals. we're probably the nastiest predators around.

 

[KFunk]

meh, get the idea that humans are cruel and ruthless by basic nature into your head and you'll drop all these notions of animal ethics and the like.

face it, if you believe in evolution then humans haven't come all this way by being nice to animals. we're probably the nastiest predators around.

Not so - altruistic behavior has evolutionary benefits (see this book for a good review of this argument). Care for one's kin and recipricocity are strongly ingrained propensities. In any case, even if we do manage to identify ourselves as "cruel and ruthless" then why not attempt a change? Also, biological success is not the same as domination of other species. Many relationships (between or within species) can be symbiotic - such relationships form the foundations of reciprocity itself!

 

[SpLaTHoWA]

Care for one's kin and recipricocity don't necessarily mean a lack of cruelty or ruthlessness - these aren't mutually exclusive ideas. The most bloodthirsty serial killer can love his mother. That doesn't change the fact that he is a bloodthirsty serial killer.

Also, can't we see conducting research on animals to cure diseases, make more food etc as expressing our propensity to care for our kin, rather than being ruthless and cruel? Is breeding rats and the like in a controlled and safe environment so we can eventually use them for study rather than rats themselves breeding in a sewer not an example of symbiosis rather than a morally questionable act?

It's all a matter of perspective.

Incidentally, hello KFunk, I just realised we're both from Taverner's Hill. Hehe

 

[KFunk]

Haha, howdy - I noticed that as well .

As to cruelty and ruthlessness: while I take note of your serial killer example I should point out that serial killers aren't exactly the best representative of reciprocity (or human nature for that matter --> imagine a society in which we all behaved like serial killers, we wouldn't stand a chance!). Sure, there are some bad eggs, and most people have a capacity for cruelty. However, we also have propensity to care for others and reciprocate kind actions. Empathy is a crucial part of our cognitive development - it is vital if we are to predict and understand the actions of others.

Your comments on the value of research to the people we care about is a reasonable one. From my perspective, the more benefit humans stand to gain from a given bit of research, the more justifiable the research is. Of course, there is still a great deal of research which is superfluous or lacking in benefit.

 

[kimmeh]

because i care for humans, not insignificant animals. i mean if it were dogs, cats, monkeys, cows, etc. i would feel reluctant to experiment on them, because these animals exhibit far more "human" qualities, e.g. love for offspring, pain, conscious thought (primitive though it may be). but rats and cane toads are just biological niches, just another step in the food chain. i would have no reluctance in killing one with my bare hands.

god your stupid. im not even going to argue with that.

in fact, wat r u even doing on a med forum watatank? yur uai and degree has nothing to do with medicine. u probably didnt even get an interview, so dont talk as if u know wat goes on in the interview room. fuck off.

if i was after money, i would have gone into comm/law with a 50 grand scholarship under me. and my parents couldnt give a shit wat i did, as long as it wasnt arts or nursing or some shit.

Sounding a bit elitist here now are we?

Are you unbothered if a rat experiences pain (granting that it can do so)? Given the structural similarity between a rat and a human (we do, after all, exploit this fact when we test drugs), does it really seem that big a leap to suppose that a rat can feel pain?

theres no doubt that animals experience pain. mind you, evolutionarily, we did evolve from a small mouse-like mammal at some stage. if pain/mothering ability/conciousness wasnt significant for survival, it wouldnt have been passed down this far and those traits would have undergone extinction. it happened for a reason.

 

[sam04u]

So how about if we made a new species of Rat were their Pain was completely suppressed? (Genetics?)

They would no longer feel any pain, we could experiment with them and in turn save man-kind and animals alike. And at the same time not torture these animals.


/end thread.

 

[bboyelement]

well if humans have to eat animals to stay alive say cows and pigs... whats wrong with testing with animals to find cure for humans to stay alive...
if you think about it this way eating animals is much worse because we can stay alive without eating them like becoming a vegetarian