The Instigator
ObjectivityIsAMust
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Nevearo
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Important medical science progress justifies violations to animal rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 537 times Debate No: 66576
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

ObjectivityIsAMust

Pro

1. First round is only for acceptance
2. This debate excludes cosmetics or progress that does not directly physically improve the human condition.
Note: I am not sure if this is the right way to phrase it but what I am attempting to say is that it must improve something directly along the line of human health, psychology, length of life, save lives, etc.

3. The experiment must also be reasonable and the animals suffering must be weighed with the gains for mankind.

The center of this debate should be about whether the human interest can trump an animal interest.
Nevearo

Con

I accept your challenge.
It is my position that important medical science progress does not justify violations to animal rights.
I do concede in the extremist extinction view where the rights of an individual animal are trumped by the survival of a species, but that applies both directions. As such, I request hypothetical scenarios where humanity will go extinct if a specific animal is harmed be left out of the debate. Saving one or many lives is not the same as preventing extinction, and therefore not justified.

I define animal as multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia.
I define Animal Rights as the idea that all animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives, and that their most basic interests should be respected.
Debate Round No. 1
ObjectivityIsAMust

Pro

ObjectivityIsAMust forfeited this round.
Nevearo

Con

The question we are considering today is violating animal rights justified by important medical science?

This argument presupposes that Animals have rights, and that Animal rights should not be violated without cause. The question is, is important medical science justification of the violation of those rights?

This is a tough question to answer. Many people on this earth do not believe Animals should be valued as individuals. They feel that animals exist only for the benefit of mankind. This view has a parallel history in viewing different races in the world. There are several famous cases in the world of ethnic cleansing on the basis that a particular race of people was inferior to others. American Imperialism in the West, Nazi Germany, and the Rwanda Genocide all are rooted in this idea.
One might instantly claim that these have nothing to do with Animal treatment. Animals don't have the same cognitive ability as average humans. Well neither do the mentally disabled, which are often the target of ethnic purity campaigns. But independent of that is the fact that our understanding of morality has been growing through time. It used to be acceptable to mistreat those who were different from the majority. As time has gone on, we began looking at morality from a viewpoint of what is wrong to be done to us as individuals, is wrong to do to others as individuals.

Under that concept, it becomes a question as to how are we different than animals, how does avoiding harming us apply to things that aren't us? This is a tough question. One way to tell is in how we are similar. Animals all share a few things in common.
Almost all animals have a brain. Animals with a brain have a nervous system. One of the functions of a human nervous system is the transmission of pain. While we do not know for certain that animals feel pain, we do know that some animals have reacted in a manner similar to how we would expect an animal to feel pain to react. In that aspect, we can conclude that things we think would inflict pain on animals would be something we would want to avoid having done to ourselves.

This leads back to our view of morality. The moral thing is to avoid doing things to others we wouldn't want done to ourselves. We wouldn't want to be put in a position where we would react similar to how the animals react when they act in a manner we consistently view as in pain, therefore the moral thing is to not put them into that place.

But is there a greater morality? One in which it is okay to subject one to pain for the benefit of others?

To answer that question, I say pull the presuppositions of nonhuman animals out of it. A human is an animal. Is it okay for a human to be put in pain for the benefit of others? If it is not, I state that the only reason one could argue for another creature without compelling and convincing arguments that it does not inconvenience that particular kind of animal is via special pleading, and not from any real moral stance. As such, Pro's position that it is okay to violate animal rights also applies to humanity's animal rights.

While at one time it was acceptable for the violation of an individual's rights for the benefit of all, that has become less acceptable as time has gone on. If an individual willingly places themselves in harm's way to prevent harm to the greater group, that is not immoral. The immorality derives from forcing another into the position you yourself are not able to take. If you do not willingly make the sacrifice, then the action of forcing you, under the understanding that what we won't have done to ourselves we should not do to others, is immoral. An immoral action is not a justified action. An action that is justified is by the nature of the word justified, either just or right. Both are moral statements. Therefore, forcing someone to do something, even if it is to the benefit of others, is Immoral, and therefore unjustified. This would apply to any animal, as the concept of morality would apply to any animal once special pleading is removed.
Debate Round No. 2
ObjectivityIsAMust

Pro

ObjectivityIsAMust forfeited this round.
Nevearo

Con

My opponent has given me nothing to respond to, so I will just give two quick sources.

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, written by Dee Brown, describes some of the things the US Government did to the indigenous peoples of the Americas. It demonstrates what happens when you allow people to describe an entire race of people as "savages".

There was a Perdue Study which determined that Fish feel pain. A link can be found here:
http://www.livescience.com...
The study was published in the Applied Animal Behavior Science.
Debate Round No. 3
ObjectivityIsAMust

Pro

ObjectivityIsAMust forfeited this round.
Nevearo

Con

I maintain my previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
ObjectivityIsAMust

Pro

ObjectivityIsAMust forfeited this round.
Nevearo

Con

Nevearo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nevearo 2 years ago
Nevearo
sure. I will concede the a study does not have to directly save a human life to be beneficial for medical science. nor does an animal's life have to be lost for it to be detrimental to an animal.
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
I made a typo it should be: Also a study does(n't) need to directly save human lives.
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
Than accept the debate. Also a study does need to directly save human lives. Simply by adding to the pool of knowledge of mankind it indirectly leads to other research that improve the human condition.
This is called the butterfly effect. These animals are not wasted they narrow the research scope and thus further scientific progress.

Also, post statistics on your incredible large numbers like hundreds, thousands and ten thousands. It is not clear to how many experiments are you referring to with those numbers.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
The experiments you are trying to define don't exist. The more important the experiment or human heal, the more animal lives are wasted--hundreds, thousands, ten thousands for research that has a vague chance at being to help humans (notice I said "help," since there are almost no studies that can guarentee a saved human life").
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
If you have such strong convictions than support and defend them with proper arguments.
The earth has multitude of different life forms and it is illogical to view them all on the same level. Tommy for you to even exist so many things much die, including animals, plants and microbes.
It is therefore hypocritical to view everything on the same level. Even among animal there are different level of consciousness. There are even entity that can be consider an animal or a plant.

Just making arbitrary standards that have no logical basis will not win you this argument.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
It's a bad thing that should just be tolerated and ignored or stopped. Nobody in the right mind should actually argue its justification, its humancenteic and short sighted.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
We will grow out of this mentality soon, I would take up the debate but got to many debates on.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
It does not justify it. Nothing can because justification is relative to the individual, and the individual suffering has no justice. So sorry, you are wrong.

We just do it anyway, because we simplistically think 'fk it', I would rather be better off.
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
@james14

That's a very good question. I'd like it answered as well.
Posted by james14 2 years ago
james14
How can we say animals have rights? Where does that concept come from? Can someone help me, because I'm interested in this subject.
No votes have been placed for this debate.