[P] Response to Human Moral Imperative: vivisection

This was written in response to the argument that because human lives can be benifeted for the good by doing animal experimentation that we have a moral imperative in which to experiment to improve said lives.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5647/

my response:

Your argument only is valid if someone accepts the basic premise that Humans are more important than animals. When you ignore the pain and suffering of others in the name of advancement we are failing to understand the system in which we are a part of. I will not argue there is a certain pecking order in which we thrive in but because we are stronger and more able to plan and execute actions should never give us the opinion we are better only different.

I do not want to discount all the animal trials and experimentation that has gone .., because they have given us a greater understanding of human nature as well as clinical research into how to treat serious illness. The argument should rather be, now that we are at this pinnacle of achievement how can we move forward without taking the lives of animals or subjecting sentient beings to experimentation.

The idea of what is permissible comes down to identification. While one can become empowered through identification it can also subvert and separate us. It was not that long ago when African Americans were discriminated against on the grounds that they were not as human or not as evolved as white men which gave us providence to use them as we would. The same can be said about animals especially higher order animals who feel pain have social lives and responsibilities to kin and tribe. When we stop relying on hierachal classifications we are than able to move forward with our research in a positive and beneficial way.

You made the case that it was mans moral imperative to subvert those that do not meet our classification but you failed to account for the intrinsic value of all life. Equality is not about being similar it is about seeing in something a quality and attributing that quality to the notion that they deserve basic protections. I know personally that it is my moral imperative to protect life and to help those who cannot help themselves.

The fact that animal wellfare and rights are being spoken about in mainstream media should tell you the level of influence animals have over us in our lives. If it were plankton or some other paramecium we would not raise a stink over it but since it is something that we emotively and instinctively feel a connection to we are than forced to look at those repercussions. It is as i have said before a matter of identification. We have identified these animals for food, these for companion/family members, these for experimentation because if we classify that we can rigidly adhere to the confines of that identification. I can do this but no more or I cannot do this. The commitment to observation as well as redefinition should be mans moral imperative because it is only through this series of checks and balances both publicly and privately are we able to advance equally in science as well as society.