STOP VIVISECTION
04:33
We use animals in research because we believe, as if they weren't living beings, they don't belong to people, and miss of a number of abilities available in humans people., as for example, complex emotions, and abstract thinking, or the ability for languages. But what about the people who also do not have such abilities? Every year in the world are born thousands of children with severe diseases of the brain. These children will never be able to say even one sentence, never will wonder about the moral and ethical status of the mouse. It is sad, but there are people who are far from the average chimpanzee, and others on which the mental development did not even reach the capacity of a mouse. I can not find an ethical limiter, which would be narrow enough to exclude all non-humans, but wide enough to include all people, and in this case it would be based on the characteristics related to ethics as for example,it would count towards the ability to feel pain, but I am not included as belonging to bipedal genre.
It Is not better to test the drug on the baby with anencephaly, or born without the cerebral cortex, on the blind, deaf, or other babies unable to feel pain, than on a perfectly healthy mouse? My gut cannot instead carry out experiments on terminally ill people for the sake of the animals. But when I asked this question to the philosopher Rob Bass, he wrote back: "And my gut tells otherwise. I am quite clear that it is better to experiment on anencephaly, which have no consciousness than to cause suffering on mice. " And my students too often did not agree with me. They offered to rescue mice and conduct instead biomedical experiments on criminals sentenced to death.
Ambiguous is the thing as the moral intuition.
Hal Herzog - a professor of psychological sciences at the University of Western Carolina
It Is not better to test the drug on the baby with anencephaly, or born without the cerebral cortex, on the blind, deaf, or other babies unable to feel pain, than on a perfectly healthy mouse? My gut cannot instead carry out experiments on terminally ill people for the sake of the animals. But when I asked this question to the philosopher Rob Bass, he wrote back: "And my gut tells otherwise. I am quite clear that it is better to experiment on anencephaly, which have no consciousness than to cause suffering on mice. " And my students too often did not agree with me. They offered to rescue mice and conduct instead biomedical experiments on criminals sentenced to death.
Ambiguous is the thing as the moral intuition.
Hal Herzog - a professor of psychological sciences at the University of Western Carolina
![C. G. Jung – Essay on Wotan [w. Nietzsche]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMYTNoBRXNSjDDgadw3a4qbwNxve9xRU3cUdgsh8jCik7j1CCskP8kHsr3YWZde9BnB_t0m66kor5QMo0fXlGbeE84nGHJatsFQ59F_xlDYZxDE3DbDllCQq1chnBSevWnqQkUkLYXrA1z/s72-c/)
0 коммент.