May 15 2012: Many people are vegetarians for this reason. Others are conscientious about where their animal-based food comes from. The reality is that all suffering cannot be stopped (though some Buddhists might disagree), but almost all suffering can be lessened, and a lot of it can be avoided.
In the case of medical trials: if this research is so vital to saving lives, then people should be willing to volunteer to test it. The doctors themselves, for example. The Nobel prize has gone to several scientists who tested themselves to prove their points. They accepted the risks of suffering and/or death. Animals (especially ones who we do not bother asking, even when we have the ability to communicate with them (yes, we can ask chimps if they do or do not want to do something and understand their answers)) are not given the choice to sacrifice their health and well being for others. Perhaps they would agree if we explained it to them.
I like to think that if we were ever able to communicate how important live trials are to saving lives to other animals, that they would be willing to participate. However, I think we should prepared to answer the question back from them: why us and not you?
Note: I do not say this to discredit scientists or the work that they do. Nor is this a judgement of whether or not what they do is "worth it in the end." I am merely stating that it is hard to agree that such trials are ethical.
We live in an imperfect world and things do not always fall easily into black or white.
But we should know the difference between the two.
May 15 2012: As has been indicated, there are at least two separate ethical issues here. The first being: is it ethical to contribute toward the extinction of a species. The second being: is it ethical to endanger or force an animal to do something against its will for the benefit of another. Both of these require us to determine what beings we have a moral obligation to.
For the first issue, we do not need to address whether or not we have an ethical responsibility toward other creatures. We can recognize that decreased biodiversity is harmful to humans. If we can agree that intentionally acting in such a way that we know we will do harm to humans is unethical, that researching on chimps is damaging the contribution chimps make toward biodiversity, and that decreasing biodiversity is harmful, then it follows that such research is unethical.
The second issue requires us to determine whether or not humans have a moral responsibility toward non-human beings. As there is considerable debate as to whether or not humans have moral responsibility toward one another, let us not belabor the point here. The differences between humans and other animals are far outweighed by the similarities. The one notable difference we have determined is intelligence, however we generally agree that stupid people deserve to be treated ethically as much as intelligent people do (both can be equally loving and equally annoying), so let us reject that as well. For the sake of this discussion let us say that we have an ethical obligation toward all beings who can suffer (I credit Peter Singer for that).
Let's assume a being with freedom of movement suffers when that movement is denied. Locking an animal into a space or position against its will is thus unethical. Further manipulation (touched, poked, fed, against its will) will cause further suffering-and is thus also unethical.
Utilitarian arguments in the case of research due to their speculative nature (one can't know if the research will pay out).
Sep 2 2011: Mr Anonymouse,
You are going to have to provide me with the actual logic you are using. With all due respect, research logic if necessary.
Logical statement:
If it is observed, then it exists. It is observed, thus it exists.
Not logical:
If it is observed, then it exists. It is not observed, thus it does not exist.
Are you arguing that there is no absolute truth- that there is only relative truth defined by our interpretations of our observations? If so, are we not free to interpret our observations however we like?
Is this your argument?
If it I not observe it, then it is not true. I have not observed god, thus god does not exist.
I've never actually seen a hammerhead shark. Does that mean that they don't exist?
Sep 2 2011: Observability is not a requirement for existence. Did planets around other stars not exist until we observed phenomena that suggest that they do? Atoms were named such because it was believed they could be divided no further.
Sep 2 2011: I would argue that the most prominent duty of every human being is to relate to ourselves, our world, and each other with respect, kindness, understanding, and compassion.
Sep 2 2011: I suppose there's also the phenomenon that the more we pay for something, the more value we tend to give it. So the $100 concert was significantly better than the $2 download.
Sep 2 2011: I think that there should be a separation! Not all the time, certainly, and I do recognize that distance detracts from developing more intimate relationships between performer and audience. However I like the variety! Sometimes I want to go to a rock concert, other times to a baroque. I like having that choice, I like the different experiences.
Sep 2 2011: Have you ever heard Itzhak Perlman perform live? The energy in the concert hall was electric! Was everyone excited and involved? I don't feel shuttered off, rather I feel like the hushed silence is like the calm before a storm, or the eye of a hurricane. It is a sign of respect for the audience and the artist. Something that doesn't matter in a recording. You don't get to display your respect and appreciation for someone who you admire and respect.
TEDCred score: +0.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Given that chimpanzees are endangered, is it ethical to use them in biomedical research?
In the case of medical trials: if this research is so vital to saving lives, then people should be willing to volunteer to test it. The doctors themselves, for example. The Nobel prize has gone to several scientists who tested themselves to prove their points. They accepted the risks of suffering and/or death. Animals (especially ones who we do not bother asking, even when we have the ability to communicate with them (yes, we can ask chimps if they do or do not want to do something and understand their answers)) are not given the choice to sacrifice their health and well being for others. Perhaps they would agree if we explained it to them.
I like to think that if we were ever able to communicate how important live trials are to saving lives to other animals, that they would be willing to participate. However, I think we should prepared to answer the question back from them: why us and not you?
Note: I do not say this to discredit scientists or the work that they do. Nor is this a judgement of whether or not what they do is "worth it in the end." I am merely stating that it is hard to agree that such trials are ethical.
We live in an imperfect world and things do not always fall easily into black or white.
But we should know the difference between the two.
A comment on Conversation: Given that chimpanzees are endangered, is it ethical to use them in biomedical research?
For the first issue, we do not need to address whether or not we have an ethical responsibility toward other creatures. We can recognize that decreased biodiversity is harmful to humans. If we can agree that intentionally acting in such a way that we know we will do harm to humans is unethical, that researching on chimps is damaging the contribution chimps make toward biodiversity, and that decreasing biodiversity is harmful, then it follows that such research is unethical.
The second issue requires us to determine whether or not humans have a moral responsibility toward non-human beings. As there is considerable debate as to whether or not humans have moral responsibility toward one another, let us not belabor the point here. The differences between humans and other animals are far outweighed by the similarities. The one notable difference we have determined is intelligence, however we generally agree that stupid people deserve to be treated ethically as much as intelligent people do (both can be equally loving and equally annoying), so let us reject that as well. For the sake of this discussion let us say that we have an ethical obligation toward all beings who can suffer (I credit Peter Singer for that).
Let's assume a being with freedom of movement suffers when that movement is denied. Locking an animal into a space or position against its will is thus unethical. Further manipulation (touched, poked, fed, against its will) will cause further suffering-and is thus also unethical.
Utilitarian arguments in the case of research due to their speculative nature (one can't know if the research will pay out).
A reply on Conversation: What is the most prominent duty of every human being?
You are going to have to provide me with the actual logic you are using. With all due respect, research logic if necessary.
Logical statement:
If it is observed, then it exists. It is observed, thus it exists.
Not logical:
If it is observed, then it exists. It is not observed, thus it does not exist.
Are you arguing that there is no absolute truth- that there is only relative truth defined by our interpretations of our observations? If so, are we not free to interpret our observations however we like?
Is this your argument?
If it I not observe it, then it is not true. I have not observed god, thus god does not exist.
I've never actually seen a hammerhead shark. Does that mean that they don't exist?
A reply on Conversation: What is the most prominent duty of every human being?
A comment on Conversation: What is the most prominent duty of every human being?
A comment on Conversation: With the advent of amazing online videos, why are we still so compelled to experience live performance (music, sports games, dance)?
A reply on Conversation: With the advent of amazing online videos, why are we still so compelled to experience live performance (music, sports games, dance)?
A reply on Conversation: With the advent of amazing online videos, why are we still so compelled to experience live performance (music, sports games, dance)?
A reply on Conversation: With the advent of amazing online videos, why are we still so compelled to experience live performance (music, sports games, dance)?
A reply on Conversation: With the advent of amazing online videos, why are we still so compelled to experience live performance (music, sports games, dance)?