Re: Nick's, Animal's and Ethic's #2

In Nick's post he gives two scenarios. One about a dog accidentally killing a child and the other about a lion attacking and killing people. He then asks, 'Is killing the lion is more reliable than killing the dog because we invite the dog into our home? Do we automatically shed the responsibility of the owners?'

In the case of the dog accidentally killing an infant (one moral agent killing another) I can't help but feel that it is the responsibility of the owners. Yes, I do believe that society automatically sheds the accountability of the owners, but these cases should be looked at more carefully. Dogs act like they are taught to act, and if a dog is misbehaving then behavior interventions can take place to change the behaviors of said dog. The owners must have known that their dog was aggressive, and they did nothing to change that. Dogs don't just start acting vicious randomly one day. Since they had known that their dog was capable of harming their infant and they let the dog near the infant it is clearly their fault. Yet, society blames the dog and then they kill it to prove that they are more powerful.

As for the lion, I do believe that we have more justification for killing it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should. It's behaviors are purely instinctual and not influenced by humans. If it possible to get the lion back into it's natural habitat without killing it, then that's what should be done, but if not, that gives justification for terminating it's life. If the lion persisted, it would just keep killing and attacking several people. Therefore by terminating it, they are taking one life to save many.

Do you think that as humans, it is an instinct to prove that we are more powerful?

What do we do?

I just read that an estimated 17 million to 100 million animals die due to testing every year. That could be about a million every four days. Shocking. But what can we do about it? There are only so many things we can boycott like shampoos, make-up, and lotion. But as for things like prescribed pills, boycotting is usually not an option. What do we do? (All the more reason to be a vegetarian I guess.)

I believe that the amount of harm done to these animals could easily be decreased, but animal testing in general will sadly never go away. It makes sense why too. If the biomedical/pharmaceutical companies dealt with human subjects there would be lawyers, contracts, insurance, and the latter to be dealt with. Animal testing is an easy way out, but is it the best? I do agree that humans that already have cancer and are at the end of their rope should be the subjects for experimental treatments. Maybe if it was humans, they would be a bit more careful when testing a new treatment. (I'm sure that researchers only test what they have reason to believe is a cure. But what do I know, I didn't even know that they purposely give dogs cancer.) Of course, for it to get to the level of human drug trails, it still needs to be tested on animals. If fact, if they allowed human subjects to be tested, even more tests would probably have to be done. They don't want to risk being sued.

I still strongly disagree with Singer in his stance that people from hospital wards should be tested. They are in no mental state to consent, and it is extremely unethical from a psychological standpoint. Yet, convicts as subjects sounds like a plan to me-- unfortunately that goes against cruel and unusual punishment. While our rapists and murders live, our society is driven by our Darwinian complex and our strong desire for a cure.

But what do we do? What can we do to help?