Human Testing? Why Not?
Yes.
Side Score: 12
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
In no way am I suggesting non-human animal life is more important than human life- well, that's not the point that I am making in this debate. My point is merely a rational, and reasonable one: Logically, testing for beneficial human-related advancements and/or discoveries regarding our health (e.g., medications, cures, etc.) would be most effective if tested on humans as opposed to animals. How anyone could reject this logic is beyond my understanding. I assume those who repudiate human testing do so simply because of their morality and/or their religiosity. If the former - isolated from the latter - I would simply ask the problem with testing on individuals on death row- those of whom are there for a proven heinous crime such as raping and killing 30 infants in front if their parents before killing their parents? However, I cannot provide an argument for the latter as if you believe in religion, you've already proven that you are unreasonable and irrational and thus no reason to try and persuade you with reason and rationality. Side: Yes.
Often, our morality is dictated not by reason, but by our wishes. Our wishes, irrespective of whether they are religious in nature, are often inconsistent when analyzed in rigor, and they often cannot be practically realized. Take, for instance, the principle that all men are equal in value. An appropriate definition for value is the amount that someone is willing to pay--not just in monetary terms, but in time, work, and sacrifice. Though many proclaim this principle, it is merely a wish; not once in history has this principle been truly implemented--I doubt you can even find one man today who would make the same sacrifice for a criminal as they would a saint. Thus, we may conclude that we find human testing repulsive because deep down, our wish is that no one must be made to suffer. At the same time, we conveniently ignore the fact that many people are even now being forced to suffer for our benefit anyway--how many people have been severely exploited to produce the products we enjoy? Perhaps we can come to a quasi-rational conclusion from all this. Our wishes derive from our sense of empathy, which may have been a crucial evolutionary mechanism for human survival in the past. Though we may have benefited greatly from our sense of empathy, which has undoubtedly contributed to our status as the dominant life form on the planet, we must bear the responsibility for it--compromises must be made between our sense of reason and our sense of empathy in order for us to function (the majority of us, anyway). Side: Yes.
1
point
|
I believe we should conduct non-human animal testing on the creature for whom we are attempting to find a medical solution/cure. For example, if scientists are searching for a cure for dogs infected with rabies, they should do tests on dogs with rabies... not cats with rabies. Simple enough? Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
In what way is that relevant to my point? Additionally, how is that a response to the question? You gave no argument as to why human testing is impermissible, nor did you posit a rejection to the description. I will not answer your question simply because my biological values are not relevant to the discussion. Side: Yes.
|
