Hi Mycernius. I have answered the questions but she hasn`t noticed or understood them.
Thank-you.
[/color]
No, I do not agree with violating the integrity of another being's life for another's benefit when the one being tested on cannot grant their permission. If I did then I would also accept violating the integrity of retarded children for the benefit of other children. To me logic is important and it needs to balance out cutting across the spectrum without prejudice when it comes to pain and suffering because those are states that know being wishes to be in.
Faits accompli answers that. What is done is done. What things are presently being created or on the drawing board for creation can be discontinued and that is what we have the power over to stop animal testing to put an end to ongoing and future suffering.
The question is loaded. All life is truly
equal in the universal sense (unless you believe in a personal God that shows an affinity towards humans -- of which there is no proof of) in that one does not have any more right to be here than the other.
Why would the vastness of the universe care more about man on earth than a mouse? Likewise why would the universe care more about a tick than the even smaller parasites found in a tick's stomach? If your perspective is man-centric (or perhaps God centric -- again no proof), then you will view man as having more rights over anything else and "more equal" -- whatever that means. If your perspective is universal, then you will see that one life is not anymore equal than another.
Reminds me of George Orwell`s mocking tone of arrogance in "Animal Farm."
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
George Orwell, Animal Farm.
Sounds like spin to me and an exercise in back bending justification.
Definitely not logical and the word "equal" lends itself to prejudice and exploitation when one is asserting self interest over others. If you value logic, you will see that "
buts" are the perversion of logic.
Cruelty and suffering is bad, but some cruelty and suffering is not as bad as others so long as we are not the target of it and we benefit from that which we inflict because others are not "equal" to us. But, if we find someone more intelligent than us in a variety of aspects, we would not submit ourselves to pain for their benefit even though we do not equal them in intellect or ability or any aspect which we are familar with and value (not to mention all the additional ones they have over us).
So, my question is: Does logic rest on prejudice as its foundation? Maciamo also hinted at this in his thread about "laws not being applied consistantly." They are not applied consistantly because prejudice perverts the logic. That is what was anathema to
Maciamo`s view on the point of logic and consistant application.
The right to integrity of body when one is not violating the life of another is what we are physically and morally able to grant to others as it pertains to how we live.
Now, if a person invades a bear?fs den, that bear is definitely right to kill him/her(violate the integrity of his/her body), for bears and humans do not naturally have a bond or natural tendency of close living arrangements such as this. Likewise, if a mosquito violates the integrity of someone`s body then that person is not wrong to protect themselves (which if they choose may be killing the mosquito).
When one is being deprived of their right to integrity of body( or feels the threat that it is imminant) from another being, then the being that is being assaulted then wields the right to protect themselves for self preservation from the one that is trying to violate its body.
We are able to apply that because we have logic, AND we should apply it because we know that the state of pain is bad and therefore should not inflict it on another being for self preservation -- other than the situation where we are immediately threatened by that being.
Going further and further down into the reductionist argument however is the one of futility. Man does not adhere to the futility of life.
So, why is ?g
equal?h not appropriate in describing the rights of animals to integrity of body for another`s gain?
Because ?gequal?h in this case elevates a person to the level of judge and man is not the universal judge of life.
Maciamo pointed out and hinted at this with his reference to
?gwhat if advanced beings more than us came here??h earlier in this thread (or was it the vegetarian thread -- either or, it is still applicable here). Would we then submit to the logic that we are not equal of deserving of integrity of body because we do not match up on levels that they judge on -- or even if their judgements were on the same aspects of what we judge as important and determining factors that give us what we think we have the right to do to animals here? I would not submit to that archaic logic and then march happily to the ?gmore than equals?f?h laboratories. Who would?
Furthermore, the word ?g
equal?h is bogged down because things are just
different. It is useless to talk about the equal rights of cats to have drivers licenses, because they have no need for and can`t possess the ability to drive. It is also meaningless to argue for the equal rights of men to have abortions. However, men are not less equal because they don`t have this right, are they?
The beings we know from science and observation which have shown us to possess the clear ability to feel pain and suffer, should not have the integrity of their bodies violated for another`s self benefit.
If logic is what one feels is something that should be consistant and cut across the spectrum then this is the view that does not contradict itself -- unless you say you would willingly march to the labs of superior intelligence beings than one`s self for their benefit because "benefit" of the more equal beings trumps any suffering or pain one may feel to us who are not equal. That is what the ?g
equal?h logic based judgement will lead one to do --
again if logic is important to someone.
I answered this with
faits accompli. What is done cannot be undone. However, I would not point a finger at any being and say take this being and violate the integrity of its body to test on to create something for another being (another being would include all beings and therefore you can assume myself or my children fall in that category).
Would you please exhort the other, and if you also feel like it, to answer my specific "why" follow up questions to the "Germany Jewish slave labor proffiting companies" analogy?
Again,
faits accompli applies.