if animals aren't the same as us than why do animal testing seriously
I've been wondering the same thing...
"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. " ~ Charles R. Magel
if animals aren't the same as us than why do animal testing seriously
I've been wondering the same thing...
"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. " ~ Charles R. Magel
If the animals are just like us than how come they think animals dot feel the same pain we do animals aren't superman u no
if animals aren't the same as us than why do animal testing seriously
I've been wondering the same thing...
"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. " ~ Charles R. Magel
Magel's argument is (for better or worse) pretty unsound. It assumes a unidimensional comparison between human and non-human animals. If we were to apply this to another context, you could ask "Why do you cheer for your local sports team" - because they are like me (I relate through locality). "Why don't you play in your local sports team" - because they are not like me (they are fit, sporty, and so forth).
That isn't to say there aren't plenty of interesting arguments against animal testing; just that I don't really think Magel's is one of them.
if animals aren't the same as us than why do animal testing seriously
I've been wondering the same thing...
"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. " ~ Charles R. Magel
Magel's argument is (for better or worse) pretty unsound. It assumes a unidimensional comparison between human and non-human animals. If we were to apply this to another context, you could ask "Why do you cheer for your local sports team" - because they are like me (I relate through locality). "Why don't you play in your local sports team" - because they are not like me (they are fit, sporty, and so forth).
That isn't to say there aren't plenty of interesting arguments against animal testing; just that I don't really think Magel's is one of them.
I think your analogy is interesting, yet Magel questions the legitimacy of one and the same practice (animal testing). You are questioning two different practices (cheering vs playing). Magel's comparison also points to a paradoxical justification (the likeness in embodiment to humans), whereas yours identifies two different, consistent qualities -- location and physical aptitude.
Perhaps it will be easier for us to understand if you can explain what similarities you believe there are between humans and animals that makes it okay to experiment on them, and what dissimilarities you think exist which makes it morally okay to do so?
