PDA

View Full Version : Do Animals Want to be Experimented On?


SilentScope001
10-02-2007, 07:39 PM
Erm.

I always wonder this question. I know animal right activiststs states that animals hate experimenation, getting killed, etc. but how do we know for certain?

For example, human beings can consent to taking part in experiments. If an human is young, we can wait until he grow older, and then ask for his consent. But the problem is that the animal is unable to communicate to us, therefore, we cannot know what the animal really wants. Does the animal hate the experimenation? Or does the animal love experimenation? What if the animal desire to be in a cage, at least safe that he won't suffer from Mother Nature, and being treated fairly? If we prevent all animals from being experimented, we let the animals who don't want to be experimented happy, while at the same time, harming the animals who WOULD consent to such experimentation. Since we do not know what the animals really want, we should, in its stead, do the experiments, but treat the animals humanely, so that we can presumably gain their "agreement" of animals who hate the experiments and the total unconditional support of animals who would love the experiments.

I know this logic has problems, so knock it down, will you?

Rev7
10-03-2007, 12:24 AM
Well of course they don't want to be tested on, but they don't have any control over it, unless you are testing a Tiger or Lion then they would have something to say about it! :)

Weave
10-03-2007, 01:27 AM
Well... the fact that many animals such as monkeys scream in agony is pretty clear that most don't appriciate being experimented upon. As for Mother Nature, it's NATURAL. Either the animal survives or not. It either adapts, or doesn't adapt at all. The connection between an animal and its habitat is instinctual. Since animals are dominated by instinct, Mother Nature isn't something they'd be afraid of because it is a part of them. Same goes with how abstract thinking is to us... it's a part of us. I suppose dying animals would appriciate experimentation... unless it heightens their pain. Then again... scientists hardly use dying animals because they want to know what effect the experimentation has on HEALTHY animals rather than sickly/debilitated ones.
Animals may not speak with us... but they do have a primitive form of communication. Scientists probably realise when an animal's in pain due to specific behaviors that the animal exhibits whn in pain. Not all communication is talking. Drastic changes in an animal's behavior patterns, and what not, is a form of communication. Plus, animals NEVER act the same way when they're caged, than when they're in the wild. They become insecure, agressive, or in some cases, just plain depressed (simply an apathetic state). An animal in captivity is generally less capable than an animal in the wild.

Rev7
10-03-2007, 01:48 AM
I don't see how my dog could just sit around all day and do nothing. I bet he feels like a caged animal. Anyways that is a very good explaination Weave, I agree on what you said. :)

RobQel-Droma
10-03-2007, 01:50 AM
Well, they are animals.

Trust me, I love most animals. I think that they should be treated humanely all the time. But asking rhetorical questions like "do animals want to be experimented upon?" is kind of, well, rather hypothetical and pointless :). If you get my drift. But I don't think that we should ever forget that they are just that, animals. Especially when they are being experimented upon for things that benefit the human race. If it's just random, well, they better be treated right, but otherwise.... I think that a human is more important than an animal, although we should try and take good care of the latter.

Rev7
10-03-2007, 01:55 AM
I do catch your drift, animals are animals and for the most part we humans are mostly in control of them. And so the circle of life goes on...and on...

Web Rider
10-03-2007, 02:16 AM
It is, theoretically possible that animals do like to be experimented on, and their screams are really screams of pleasure, much like those heard during some S+M. However, it's very unlikly.

Also, the rule is: if they say nothing, it's "no", not consent.

tk102
10-03-2007, 02:31 AM
But I don't think that we should ever forget that they are just that, animals. Especially when they are being experimented upon for things that benefit the human race. If it's just random, well, they better be treated right, but otherwise.... I think that a human is more important than an animal, although we should try and take good care of the latter.

Say there was a far advanced alien species out there that needed some guinea pigs for an experiment, except instead of guinea pigs, human beings were used. Would that be okay with you? Just curious if your viewpoint comes from a species-hierarchy of importance or is just plain anthropocentric. :)

PoiuyWired
10-03-2007, 09:22 AM
Well, I am basically against unnecessary animal testing. Things like medical research may be some kind of unfortunate necessary evil, as human lives are a wee bit more important than than of an animal. That is due to us being humans, and it is only fair to protect our own before other species.

But seriously, I don't see the point of drowning animals in cosmetics, or dripping household chemicals on some poor critter to see if they die from it.

It is, theoretically possible that animals do like to be experimented on, and their screams are really screams of pleasure, much like those heard during some S+M. However, it's very unlikly.

Also, the rule is: if they say nothing, it's "no", not consent.

Here we are obviously talking about non-fun type of experiments, and not things like the "see if that doggie can remember where the red ball is" experiments.

And I don't think there is such thing as masochist doggie, or things like that.

SilentScope001
10-03-2007, 01:10 PM
Say there was a far advanced alien species out there that needed some guinea pigs for an experiment, except instead of guinea pigs, human beings were used. Would that be okay with you? Just curious if your viewpoint comes from a species-hierarchy of importance or is just plain anthropocentric. :)

I'm okay with that. :)

However, I do realize that people want the best of both worlds: 1) Being able to experiment on other species and 2) NOT be experimented on. That is what I was trying to figure out, but the only theory that can allow for that to happen is "humancentiricism." Which is a nice theory and all, since humans should try to keep themselves alive at all costs (becuase other animals want to keep themselves alive at all costs, it is the law of Nature)...but would offend many people in the process.

Attempting to argue that we shouldn't deny animals the right to be experimented on just because we humans assume they don't want it...er, didn't really work, so I better go and come up with a different idea.

Web Rider
10-03-2007, 04:22 PM
And I don't think there is such thing as masochist doggie, or things like that.

But that is as much supposition as the original question.

PoiuyWired
10-04-2007, 07:39 AM
But that is as much supposition as the original question.

But since we do not have a way to access if each animal is a masochist, we can assume that there existy animals that are non-masochist and thus is subject to the experiments unwillingly. Well, unless you can prove that all animals are masochists.

Plus, even if an animal is masochistic, there is no "safe word" established for in-process experimant termination for the animals. What do you do for safewords... "roof-roof and wiggle your tail thrice"? or would you prefer the "sad puppy eye"?

So I think the "Masochistic animal" idea is is kinda impractical.

PS: Now if you get an animal that is a sadist, do you let her perform experiments on you?

SilentScope001
10-04-2007, 12:43 PM
But since we do not have a way to access if each animal is a masochist, we can assume that there existy animals that are non-masochist and thus is subject to the experiments unwillingly. Well, unless you can prove that all animals are masochists.

I wasn't assuming the animals were masochists. I think the animals do hate pain. What I was wondering however is that since scientists want to keep the animals alive in order to continue the testing, the scientists will treat the animals fairly well, by providing them food and a place to play. Would the animal prefer the safety of the scientists, and all their love and care, to cold heartless nature, deciding that while they hate the pain, at least it is better than the pain of Mother Nature, and that the great care that the scientsits give outweigh the pain they suffer?

tk102
10-04-2007, 12:54 PM
Would the animal prefer the safety of the scientists, and all their love and care,:lol: I don't think you really believe that. Scientists can't show love to animals they're experimenting on because it's a conflict of interest. Any data associated with the experiment would be highly suspect if not invalidated.

From the animals' point of view, you're granting them a lot of human qualities assuming they can make value comparisons...
"My dear, I have to admit, we have it pretty good in this rat cage wouldn't you agree?"
"Indeed, I love the climate control, regular feedings and exercise."
"Just imagine if we had to be born in the wild...how uncivilized."

Totenkopf
10-04-2007, 05:22 PM
:lol: I don't think you really believe that. Scientists can't show love to animals they're experimenting on because it's a conflict of interest. Any data associated with the experiment would be highly suspect if not invalidated.

From the animals' point of view, you're granting them a lot of human qualities assuming they can make value comparisons...
"My dear, I have to admit, we have it pretty good in this rat cage wouldn't you agree?"
"Indeed, I love the climate control, regular feedings and exercise."
"Just imagine if we had to be born in the wild...how uncivilized."

Only thing missing here is a reference to Grey Poupon. ;)

SilentScope001
10-04-2007, 07:03 PM
From the animals' point of view, you're granting them a lot of human qualities assuming they can make value comparisons...
"My dear, I have to admit, we have it pretty good in this rat cage wouldn't you agree?"
"Indeed, I love the climate control, regular feedings and exercise."
"Just imagine if we had to be born in the wild...how uncivilized."

Curse you, appeal to absurdity! :lol:

Oh well, looks to me that the plan sort of failed. While I would like to argue that the idea of granting rights does presuppose that animals are intelligent, and hence that they are able to make value comparisons, such logic will not work. The main reason I try this line of reasoning is to try and help out scientists in continuning to do all sorts of animal research (including cosmetic research), but it can easily backfire, like it did here.

Oh well. Back to the drawing board.

MdKnightR
10-05-2007, 01:51 AM
Okay, I'm not going to bother reading past the first post. The title alone is asinine.

Corinthian
10-05-2007, 02:18 AM
Then why did you post?

RobQel-Droma
10-06-2007, 01:18 AM
tk102 is right. You are making the assumption that these animals have these kinds of qualities. :)

Also, the rule is: if they say nothing, it's "no", not consent.

Er.... I seem to be missing something here.

Say there was a far advanced alien species out there that needed some guinea pigs for an experiment, except instead of guinea pigs, human beings were used. Would that be okay with you? Just curious if your viewpoint comes from a species-hierarchy of importance or is just plain anthropocentric.

I had to look that word up, darn you.

First of all, I think that there is a difference between what we call "animals" and what we call "humans". Perhaps it is just my beliefs that is the reason for this, but I don't think that it is just a matter of "intelligence" so to speak; in other words, it isn't because we have an IQ of 100 and they have one of 10.

It has to do with them being an actual being that... grrr, this is the part that is hard to explain. Perhaps a self-aware quality, or a kind of questioning being that is not just based on instinct and animalistic urges.

For example, and animal can burn itself from sticking it's nose in an oven, and will know not to do that again (hopefully), but it isn't the same thing. It's just instinct, of, that hurts and so I won't do it. Not an actual reasoning of the thing and understanding what the issue is, so if we saw a red-hot piece of metal we wouldn't stick our nose on that afterwards.

I'm really sorry if that analogy sucks or is most likely faulty, but it's the best I could come up with at short notice. I'm really not getting it across very well probably. But I hope you know what I mean. Maybe the real key is understanding your own being, aware of being alive and a sentient person. Asking "why" you are alive, or "if". (I know, I'm going totally philosophical on you here)

Just let me put it as, if there was some advanced alien species that came knocking on my door asking if they could poke me with a needle, I would understand what they were doing, understand that we were both creatures that understood our own existence or whatnot, and communicate (more or less) "no."

But, as I said, don't get me wrong. Don't unnecessarily cause some poor animal to scream or cry because of your sadistic urge for knowlege whatever the cost. However, I kind of find this thread funny - is there a specific case of this happening, or do some just feel that that is what most experimentation is? ;)

*Has vision of evil scientist experimenting on a crying dog with electric shocks inside of a dark dungeon*

tk102
10-06-2007, 03:11 AM
Though most of this thread is absurd, there are the undertones of morality as it relates to animals and those are quite suitable for philosophical discussion.

Didn't mean to single you out personally Rob, it was actually a question I've asked of myself when the topic of animal experimentation comes up. Though I value all life, I can't say I value it all equally. I don't hesitate to smash a mosquito as it lands on me for instance, but I'm not going to do the same to a dog that jumps on me. That is due to my own limited ability to feel empathy towards a mosquito compared to a dog. If I can sense that an animal is pain or fear, I will try to remedy that if I can. Insects just don't express themselves very well.

But anyway, as far as deliberate experimentation goes -- it's a hard situation to deal with. Medicinal labs have much higher standing in my mind than dietary labs which have a higher standing than cosmetic labs. Groups like Animal Liberation Front and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals provide some degree of check against wanton use of animal experimentation. Part of me appreciates their existence, but I'm not so impassioned about the topic as to join or donate to these groups.

So yeah, I'm not a saint. I do eat meat. I value human lives over animal lives. And if the aliens needed humans for experiments, as a human I wouldn't like that, but I couldn't point a finger and say E.T., you're immoral.

Rev7
10-06-2007, 03:16 AM
From the animals' point of view, you're granting them a lot of human qualities assuming they can make value comparisons...
"My dear, I have to admit, we have it pretty good in this rat cage wouldn't you agree?"
"Indeed, I love the climate control, regular feedings and exercise."
"Just imagine if we had to be born in the wild...how uncivilized."
Interesting way of putting it... :)

PoiuyWired
10-06-2007, 04:15 PM
Well, that depends on what treatment the animals are recieving. I mean a hamster recieving poisonous chemical injection would feel quite different from the one being used to test the new hamsterfood...

But well, I guess some animal do enjoy being "Kept" as opposed to being in thw wild. I mean, my cats are all born strays, and they are definitely happier in my house. I even took one back to the place I pick him up for a walk, and he prefers to stay close to me and my carrying cage instead? :)

Rev7
10-06-2007, 04:33 PM
Animals have opinions too.:)

Darth InSidious
10-07-2007, 09:50 AM
I'm pretty sure most don't.

Animals are non-sentient. About the most that they are capable of wanting is their next meal.

Weave
10-07-2007, 02:46 PM
I'm sure they have an opinion... we just can't hear it. It's non-verbal. Not all non-sentient animals only think about their next meal. Dogs seek the affection of their owner. Monkeys despise being alienated from their social groups, Whales must travel in packs every now and then so that they don't feel too lonely... etc.

Animals that scream when they're in pain, or show erratic changes in their normal behavior show that they have a pretty clear opinion about things. Did you know that Tigers pace constantly in their cages at zoos? Their instinct to be natural is supressed and I doubt they like it. Sure, they'll lie down too... but, pacing, sleeping, and eating is all they're allowed to do.

Like I said before, communication doesn't always have to be spoken. Body language is enough for me to realise that most animals don't really like being caged, that A LOT of animals hate being experimented on, and that many have quite a big opinion about the issue.

PoiuyWired
10-07-2007, 03:09 PM
Like I said before, communication doesn't always have to be spoken. Body language is enough for me to realise that most animals don't really like being caged, that A LOT of animals hate being experimented on, and that many have quite a big opinion about the issue.

I would like to think that the "verbal" way of communication is actually only useful in exchange of really complex ideas. Other than that even humans use lots of non-verbal communications, well, as least when around close ones.

Ctrl Alt Del
10-07-2007, 10:17 PM
Of course they don't and they do manifest their opinions about it. Otherwise, why would a caged animal flee if the cage is left open? I think that real question in here is if it's right to do such things with those non-sentients.

Thing is, us humans use that lives that are considered "less important" than ours and test them to improve our living. Is that immoral? You might want to consider that these animals aren't sentient, they aren't aware of their own existence and they leave for the moment, always searching for means that can satisfy their lusts. Nevertheless, it's undeniable that animals feel pain. So it's kind of trick.

Rev7
10-07-2007, 10:22 PM
How is it a trick? Animals do feel pain, and do communicate with others in there species. For Example dogs bark, we as humans don't understand what they are saying but they are communicating with other dogs or trying to communicate with humans.