h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>What is so special about humans in your eyes?

The ability to engage in a cooperative relationship with other humans. We call this relationship 'society'. Morality defines the principles of cooperation.


On the Cato thing...yes, 'O tempora, o mores'. Nevertheless, I still think that we're entitled to judge as undesirable the normal behaviour of other cultures, in the same way that we can admit that our own society is often immoral.

As an observation, though - we might take the view that our own society has progressed in a desirable direction by abandoning slavery. (at least, overt slavery). There has also been some degree of movement away from tolerating animal cruelty (no bear baiting, etc). Is it the case that those who are against animal experimentation are in the vanguard? On the other hand - doctors engaged on medical research using animals might plausibly counter that they are in the moral vanguiard against human suffering.

<>

Nothing unique about that. Ants, wolves, baboons all cooperate with other members of their species. Its called a pack when they do it though.

I'm not claiming uniqueness for humans. It's a matter of how we define our moral sphere.

So if humans are nothing special and animal testing is justified if it benefits us would you support human testing for animals benefit?
You are giving humans a 'special' place without the excuse of religion and I can't see what your moral justification for it is

Well...if the animals want to propose an experiment...

If a bonobo were wanting to experiment on me, I'd naturally oppose it. Similarly, I'd oppose a leopard who wanted to eat me. The fact of the matter is that we humans tend to have the upper hand over other animals. That's not a comment on our special status within a grand, universal theme, just an observation on a morally neutral pragmatic fact.

>>...without the excuse of religion

This is getting to the nub. Events within the universe are morally neutral. Morality is a human construct. There's no outside arbiter of whether killing animals or not killing animals is preferable. It's down to our own (collective) preference(s).

Observably, we have a range of preferences. Some would say animal experimentation for human benefit is wrong. Others would say that not to experiment when humans could benefit is wrong. How do we arbitrate?

I am proposing that since it's ultimately down to human preference, and since humans would (on the whole) prefer not to be ill, that's the basis on which we decide.

Compare and contrast with 'Homosexuality is unpalateable' (as some genuinely feel) vs 'Homosexuality is fun'. Again, how do we arbitrate between opinions? Well, here the principle is that we prefer not to have our private lives interfered with.

So I can see that putting animals on a par with humans is a widely-held and quite legitimate opinion. But how do arbitrate for the fact that others don't share it - given that neither side is backed up by a morally neutral universe?

Hi Eddie ,

"Never mind the unsubtle jibes about laws against those who think it is reasonable to defile graves in the name of their cause. What's your practical solution?"

So because a few nutters on the fringe do nasty things we blame an entire population who's only crime is a political or perhaps moral belief in the rights of animals?

Perhaps if I substituted the word 'muslim' for 'animal rights protestor' (as being muslim is a choice) then these laws would be rubbished for what they are, attempts to silence the law-abiding majority in the animal rights movement because they are making people in government (and possibly their backers) uncomfortable.

[Tangent warning] This is another example of how recent British governments have nibbled away at our freedoms until now we have none at all. They have well and truly boiled the frog. Recent legislation against various forms of 'terrorism' have in the majority of cases been used to silence previously lawful protest. Fear is a great ally for governments. [Tangent complete]

Experimentation upon animals should be licenced by a body that has the right to make scientists justify the benefits that will be gained against the suffering they cause. This body needs to be independent of government, have lay members of the public in the majority, and be answerable directly to Parliament, not Whitehall.

Funding should be made available to develop and enhance methodologies that meet the experimental meeds of science, but without the need to make animals suffer. We could become a world leader in this, another feather in the cap of British science.

As proven and practical alternative methods become available the Licencing Body could tighten the requirements for a licence for animal experimentation. Cost is not to be considered a governing factor when demanding alternatives are used.

I am not so dumb as to think we can eliminate animal testing quickly, or even in its entirety. But it must be within the wit of man to find ways to reduce it until only the most extreme cases are allowed.

Practical enough for you?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Math, you're being silly.

I have not advocated the draconian use of antiterrorist laws against animal rights protesters. You've gone off on one simply because I suggested that it might not be reasonable to dig up the deceased grandmother of a guinea pig farmer, no matter how strongly one feels.

Other than that - your practical suggetions are, I believe, quite reasonable...and not very dissimilar to our present situation in this country, and pretty much where I've been trying to lead us.

I'm not convinced of the necessity of direct parliamentary oversight - it seems to me to be an area in which expertise is needed - and this is not, I believe, inconsistent with our model of representative democracy and public institutions. Nor am I wholly convinced (although I might be persuaded) that finding alternatives is the best use of our money...but, hey, that's democracy. (And pretty much why I've been banging on about consensus).

HOWEVER - to throw your ill-conceived slavery jibe back at you...according to your own (but not my) logic in which animal and human wellbeing are of equal value...is this not equivalent to our having a parliament that is willing to phase out slavery, when we're economically ready for it? Much as it did in the time of Wilberforce. Again, it resulted in Britain becoming a world economic leader because it wasn't dependent on the slave trade.

Your logic - not mine.

To further prompt us on whether we're dominionist at heart...let me develop my Darfur/rats 'Gedankensexperiment' further:

Psychocandy said:
>>I don’t think we’ve established this as a principle. I think what we’ve established is that in dire circumstances, an individual values his/her life more than any other life. I’ve made it abundantly clear that in many cases, I’d give precedence to the animal over a human, depending on the circumstances and my relationship to either.

So now let's try trading off someone else's life against the rats'

So...same camp, same food store, same rats. Only the camp's (human) inhabitants are having difficulty controlling the plague. As it happens, you are driving by. You don't have any food with you, and your car is too small to be able to evacuate the people. However...you just happen to have a quantity of rat poison in the trunk.

Would it be morally acceptable to refuse to help the people to kill the rats because of your personal opinion on the equal value of human and rat life?

In other words...who gets it? The rats or the people?


If we favour the people, can we say that mistreatment of rats is equivalent to mistreatment of Africans?

Also on animals vs Africans - see Alistair Fraser:
http://www.pro-test.org.uk/about.php?lt=a

Does he strike us as immoral?

Eddie, Me? Silly? Heaven forfend!

"I have not advocated the draconian use of antiterrorist laws against animal rights protesters."

I did not say that you had. What you infer and what I imply need not be the same. Yes I do go off on one, I even provide warnings now.

"Other than that - your practical suggetions are, I believe, quite reasonable...and not very dissimilar to our present situation in this country, and pretty much where I've been trying to lead us."

Can he be speaking about me? Caloo! Calay! Oh frabjous day!

"I'm not convinced of the necessity of direct parliamentary oversight - it seems to me to be an area in which expertise is needed - and this is not, I believe, inconsistent with our model of representative democracy and public institutions."

Accountability is frequently an issue when such quangos fail.

"Nor am I wholly convinced (although I might be persuaded) that finding alternatives is the best use of our money...but, hey, that's democracy. (And pretty much why I've been banging on about consensus)."

Hey you wanted a practical plan. I provided one that meets the desires of a significant proportion of the populace yet allow science to continue.

"HOWEVER -"

I just knew this r'approchement couldn't last...

"... to throw your ill-conceived slavery jibe back at you...according to your own (but not my) logic in which animal and human wellbeing are of equal value...is this not equivalent to our having a parliament that is willing to phase out slavery, when we're economically ready for it? "

I think I need to go back to the OED and look up 'practical', I've obviously misunderstood your request.

"Your logic - not mine."

So it appears...

Blessings,
Matholwch .

>Would it be morally acceptable to refuse to help the people to kill the rats because of your personal opinion on the equal value of human and rat life?<

I think so, yes. How I would react to that situation is all but impossible to say, though- I've never been in a situation like that, and I'm not likely to be.

I think it is morally acceptable, in any circumstance, to refuse to do something that one finds unethical.

I do see your point, though. I live in a society which places a higher value on the life of a fetus than a living human being, and that's not necessarily morally acceptable, either. So I do understand what you're pointing out regarding the influence of personal opinion/taste on an individual's ethical code.

Well yes, the hypothetical is too unlikely for words since I don't drive even in Wales never mind Africa and can't see why I'd have a trunkful of rat poison anyway but if I was in that situation I expect I'd use the rat poison. It wouldn't be a considered moral judgement I'd be making though but an emotional response based on it being easier to empathise with refugees than with rats. If I just did that then drove away without a thought I might be happier but I wouldn't have done anything about the real problems there and the refugees might starve or be massacared a month later.

>>I think it is morally acceptable, in any circumstance, to refuse to do something that one finds unethical.

OK - I'll call you on that.

- Morally acceptable to deny medical treatment to an enemy combatant?

- Morally acceptable to refuse to allow gay couples to stay in your B&B?

- Morally acceptable to refuse consent for your child to have a life-saving blood transfusion?

- Morally acceptable not to support condom use in Africa?
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7014335.stm)


Some people (unfortunately) have strong ethical positions on all of these. My point is that I don't even trust my own moral leanings, so why would I trust yours or anyone else's? We need justifications.

Now, I can see your point. All of the above would be a priori ethical because people declare them as such. But they don't conform to any type of ethics I'd want to be a part of. I think we'd be entitled to oppose them vigorously.



BC:
>>I'd be making though but an emotional response based on it being easier to empathise with refugees than with rats.

Is that what it comes down to, then? In which case, is it morally acceptable for me to empathise with humans more than monkeys? Or are those who empathise with all animals morally superior to me? And are the Jains most morally superior to all of us because they don't want to dig up carrots in case they disturb worms and soil microbes?

(And the point of thought experiments is meant to be to separate the issues out from the compexities of our wider context. I don't think it matters if the example is artificial, so long as it makes us think)



Math:
Point taken on the practicality issue. I take it that you've now proposed a practical compromise with which you would personally find far from ideal? That's not a criticism. I think it's where we need to aim.

Would you, then, consider it ethical for someone like Dr Tipu Aziz to carry out experiments on monkey brains which would (presumably) continue within such a framework?

BUT: It still blows your fatuous Auschwitz comparison out of the water. . Yes, yes, animals die in slaughterhouses, people died in Auschwitz. Germany voted for Hitler, but that doesn't mean that doctors who see a moral imperative in carrying out animal experiments under democratic oversight are remotely comparable to Nazis. (All ducks are birds therefore all birds are ducks?)

Plus, you violated Godwin's law.

<>

I think you answered yourself there.
I wouldn't accuse the doctor in question of behaving amorally or immorally because he has acted in accordance with his moral framework
Doesn't mean I wouldn't want to restrict animal experimentation though

So Math's framework is reasonable?

However...
>>I wouldn't accuse the doctor in question of behaving amorally or immorally because he has acted in accordance with his moral framework

I don't think I'd accuse the people in the examples I put to PC of being *a*mmoral - but I'd certainly hudge them immoral. Maybe that doesn't matter, though. The point is that I'd be agin 'em, and I'd have civilisation on my side. (They might trust in god. I - naively, maybe - trust in people)

btw...apropos of not very much - a podcast on Socrates:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/

So here's my follow up question for psychocandy:

Suppose there were equal numbers of rats and humans in Ed's Darfur/rats example - what do you do then? What if there were one more rat than humans? What about if it was one less? What if it were some sort of insect rather than rats? (The same questions - equal numbers, one more, one less.)

Supplementary questions (for PC and BC):

Is 'I don't know - I've never had to make that choice' a reasonable answer? Does it amount to making it up as you go along? Is this a reasonable basis for the order we collectively impose on society?

>So here's my follow up question for psychocandy:

Suppose there were equal numbers of rats and humans in Ed's Darfur/rats example - what do you do then? What if there were one more rat than humans? What about if it was one less? What if it were some sort of insect rather than rats? (The same questions - equal numbers, one more, one less.)<

Fair questions. I don't think the number of rats or humans in that example would/should make a difference. I'm guessing that what you're asking is that if there were a higher population of rats than humans, I should opt to save some humans, with the assumption that would maximize the chances of survival for all involved?

**

>Is 'I don't know - I've never had to make that choice' a reasonable answer? Does it amount to making it up as you go along? <

I don't think it amounts to making it up as I go along. What it amounts to is that I cannot provide a "reasonable" answer to an unrealistic hypothetical situation. I would never have any kind of poison in my car (even if I did drive), and I'm not in the habit of passing through refugee camps. So I have no basis on which to form a decision, and can only answer what I *think* I would do in the situation. Which would be to keep driving and not to use the poison, because I can't justify using poison, ever.

Actually...Dan - er - Dogster's angle is particularly useful.

Even if our moral decisions are based ultimately on preference, overwhelmingly humans tend to have at least one human who they prefer to at least one animal. It follows that at least to a minimum degree, we collectively favour humans to animals.

So...now we've established that we're whores, let's carry on haggling over the price.