padren Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 While I dislike the idea of killing mice for scientific experimentation, when there is no other option but to keep watching people die I have to accept it. We already poison mice that get into our homes as they carry diseases and can make us sick. Killing them to prevent diseases in homes is okay, but not in the lab? It is a fair question to ask "where the line is drawn" I suppose but I certainly don't think it's drawn at mice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDarwin Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Ah yes, the modern, socio-political interpretation of the word as subjugated and promulgated by the animal rights movement. As opposed to the original and more traditional definition of the word, focusing more on intelligence. Pardon me, I should have recognized where you were going with that two posts ago. Well hey, I can understand the sentiment. Unfortunately having subjugated that word for political purposes, it can no longer be used as a scientific basis for a rational, objective decision on the subject. So we're back to square one there. But I certainly respect your opinion on it. Mine just differs, I'm afraid. If by "traditional" definition you mean Star Trek definition. Sentient really, originally, just means "able to respond to sensations of pleasure and pain," which does cover mice. However, the term has been bandied about so much that it is more of a political term now than a terribly scientifically useful one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 When someone finally figures out how to graft female reproductive organs onto male appendages, they will become very rich very quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visceral Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 So who would you rather kill: 100 lab mice, or 100 humans? In what situation? A choice between experimenting on them to cure human diseases? Or just a strict one-or-the-other choice between mouse or human? Which 100 humans am I killing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 What's the difference? Dead is dead. And are you seriously saying that some humans are worth less than mice, because of some arbitrary aspects of them? You can either kill the 100 mice, or 100 humans. Pick one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visceral Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 What's the difference? Dead is dead. And are you seriously saying that some humans are worth less than mice, because of some arbitrary aspects of them? You can either kill the 100 mice, or 100 humans. Pick one. Yes some humans are worth less. If it were, say, 100 of those chav guys who do nothing except hang around intimidating everyone and sexually harassing women, sure, I'd kill them instead of the mice. If it were 100 war criminals or 100 drug dealers, I'd kill them instead of the mice. Again, under what circumstances? If both were in danger and I could only save the humans, I would probably do that, because humans are my kind. If the 100 humans had a disease and I could choose to kill the mice to find a cure for said disease, no, I wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Yes some humans are worth less. If it were, say, 100 of those chav guys who do nothing except hang around intimidating everyone and sexually harassing women, sure, I'd kill them instead of the mice. If it were 100 war criminals or 100 drug dealers, I'd kill them instead of the mice. That's pretty cold, "chav guys" may have their faults but I hardly think that warrants a death sentence because it's them or some mice. What's your opinion on exterminators killing mice that infest prisons? If both were in danger and I could only save the humans, I would probably do that, because humans are my kind. If the 100 humans had a disease and I could choose to kill the mice to find a cure for said disease, no, I wouldn't. Would you personally explain to them and their families why you made that decision? Would you still do that if your own child or mother was in the group of 100 people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 If the 100 humans had a disease and I could choose to kill the mice to find a cure for said disease, no, I wouldn't. So, you'd murder 100 humans, random humans who may have done nothing wrong, to save mice? And make no mistake, it's murder. You're killing my inaction. Refusing to research the cure for a disease using mice is just as much murder as refusing to throw a life raft to a drowning man. Murder by inaction is still murder. What basis do you have for that? Why should people die to save an animal whose entire ecology and evolution is dictated by its role as 'a quick snack for the predator on the go'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 No offense intended, but it appears that I was correct in raising the specter of the less savory side of the animal rights movement as the motivation for resurrecting this thread. Good work on Mokele's part in bringing that to the fore. Visceral, I respect your opinion on it, but your reporting bias pretty much punts this thread out of the "hmm, is there something to learn here?" category and well into the "agree to disagree" pile, at least from where I sit. Not that I'm complaining -- it doesn't hurt to resurrect a subject now and then just to see if anything's changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Wow, entire subcultures deemed unworthy of life, while mice get the rights of any human. I'm glad you're not in charge! Agree to disagree, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visceral Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 No, people who terrorize everyone in the area because they can are unworthy of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 So, let me get this straight: You can proclaim entire groups of people unworthy of life simply because of their behavior or image at any given time (even considering that behavior may change in future and that behavior has not cost anyone their life). Yet we cannot be allowed to make our own decisions about whether innocent human lives outweigh the lives of rats. How, exactly, are we the immoral ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visceral Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Let's agree to disagree Mokele, I like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 No, people who terrorize everyone in the area because they can are unworthy of life. Maybe I shouldn't bite but: Putting aside of whether it's just on it's own merits, who has the right or capacity to make this determination considering the extreme miscarriage of justice should one make a mistake in passing judgment on a person's worthiness? Mice, btw do terrorize everything they can - they just can't terrorize anything as effectively as humans. There are no noble creatures. Even dolphins and whales can be violent - it's very common in mammals for males to kill the young of females so they will mate again. Humans may have the capacity to rise above the violence of the animal kingdom, but when they don't can you really say they are worth less than those very animals that basically never do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visceral Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Animals cannot help this as they don't have the ability for conscious thought to rise above it. Humans like I described on the other hand, choose to behave like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Animals cannot help this as they don't have the ability for conscious thought to rise above it. Humans like I described on the other hand, choose to behave like that. Why are you setting the bar there - why should humans have to choose to rise above it to be worthy of life? How do you know that from a given person's perspective that terrorizing everyone they can may not be the only option they see as realistic? Personally, I see selfless people as those who have exceeded the baseline in inspiring ways, not as people who simply met it. Not to mention, there's a huge range of gray. Many of our nation's most inspirational founders kept slaves - very terrorizing to say the least. Were they not worthy of life? We see their faults now, but they were hard to spot in the culture they lived in. In 200 years, the very best of us may be seen in no better light by our descendants, including yourself. I am just suggesting you examine the shades of gray in your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 If a race existed who were massively superior to normal humans, would it be ok for them to experiment in humans because we are 'lower'? you mean species. I would be bias towards my species, so I feel pain when my species is damaged. One exception would be if this species is very helpful to us or helpful to the ecology and almost extinct. Then, I would consider offering myself to help them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now