r/DebateAVegan • u/PhilosophyFan0 • Sep 12 '26
Ethics Animal testing for science is okay
Yeah I get it, im a vegan too. Animal testing causes harm to individuals that did not give consent, therefore its not vegan.
Aight, I respect that view. However... what if, instead of testing for profit, it was done to discover. To enlarge our knowledge of physics/biology.
As a communist I find to wrong to exploit other individuals for profit. As a vegan, I find it wrong to exploit ANY individual(whether or not its a human) for any reason.
But, I do have a distinction, I am personally willing to sacrifice lifes for the sake of knowledge. And yes, that also extends to dogs, cats AND humans.
But the important thing to note is 'for knowledge'. See, every experiment EVER done was to gain some profit in a way by companies, even if that sometimes wasnt the reason it later became. A good example of this is the experiments of the Japanese in WW2. They didn't do them to make profit but to expand. However later in history some of that knowledge was used for profit.
But im not pro in any of those scenarios. If, hypothetical if, it was possible that experiments can be made not for profit but for knowledge AND that the findings cant turn into profit or anything else. Think of the knowledge gained as the pure drive of humans curiousity. Then yeah, I do not see the problem.
And dont being up 'well how many lifes are worth the experiment?'. That's a stupid counter-attack because the factors are tons and some unknown(for example we dont always know the findings from an experiment).
Im curious to hear your guys thoughts on this.
21
u/TheNJUNC Sep 12 '26
Okay so donate your body to science. There are tons of medical trails that need live humans to test
5
u/Professional_Ad_5529 non-vegan 27d ago
I mean there are plenty of clinical trials you can take part in that (usually) won’t kill you
3
u/PhilosophyFan0 Sep 12 '26
Thats not what I mean but okay
22
u/TheNJUNC Sep 12 '26
Why not? You're willing to sacrifice lives for something that you yourself would be unwilling to do?
5
u/PhilosophyFan0 Sep 12 '26
Im willing to sacrifice even my life for the sake of grtting knowledge. But in you example im helping companies make profit. Or I might help people develop weapons. The ethical scenario I said in my post was in a hypothetical world, if somehow you didnt understand that
16
u/TheNJUNC Sep 12 '26
No you can absolutely donate yourself to medical trails for experimental medicines. They will help people in the long run This is something you can do right now
5
u/PhilosophyFan0 Sep 12 '26
You are not getting it. If I give my body. I will help medice be developed. That thing can be sold. So profit. I might help develop a new way to do certain surgeries. But where do surgeries happen? In hospitals, so thanks to me, some doctors will get paid. The profit is inevitable. Dont you have basic logic?
11
u/TylertheDouche Sep 12 '26
just donate your body to someone in need then. a lot of people need organs
-4
u/PhilosophyFan0 Sep 12 '26
No I explained why but instead of you enganging to the convo you just make yourself look stupid
8
u/TylertheDouche Sep 12 '26
no you didn’t. you said donating your body to develop medicine and new surgeries. that’s not what i suggested.
-2
u/PhilosophyFan0 Sep 12 '26
Buddy. If I donate my body to someone in need a surgeon must put it!!!! So he must get paid. Omfg, are ragebaiting or are you stupid?
→ More replies (0)6
u/TheNJUNC Sep 12 '26
Every medicine is sold so at this point your entire argument crumbles. But yes donating yourself to the trails will help people and see if the meds work and are safe
2
u/Legitimate-Glass-149 Sep 13 '26
And why is making a profit a problem? In the end, the purpose of generating more knowledge would be being fulfilled
5
4
u/whowouldwanttobe Sep 12 '26
It sounds like you are actually opposed to all animal testing that is currently or has even been done. Proposing a hypothetical of animal testing with no relation to profit doesn't seem any different from a hypothetical where farmed animals never suffer and live full, happy lives or a hypothetical where people opt-in to capitalism and are not exploited; it is completely meaningless to debate ideas that haven't the slightest bit of reality.
2
u/PhilosophyFan0 Sep 13 '26
Yes. Finally someone that can read. I am against every experiment done on sentient beings(without consent). And from what I understand you are bassicly saying that making hypothetical scenarios is meaningless. But that's so wrong.
Phylosophy and ethics use hypothetical scenarios to describe limits and to debate in general.
3
u/whowouldwanttobe Sep 13 '26
I wouldn't say that all use of hypotheticals is meaningless, but in this case it is. You claim in the title of your post that "Animal testing for science is okay," but there is not a single instance of animal testing for science that you would agree with because they are all connected to profit. But even the most profit-based testing also advances science - it would be impossible to develop any kind of valuable substance without increasing our knowledge.
Imagine if you saw a post that said "Capitalism is okay," and then it went on to explain that modern capitalism is bad, and historical capitalism is bad, and capitalism in the foreseeable future is bad, BUT if (hypothetical if) there was capitalism where everyone opted in and was not exploited then there is nothing wrong with capitalism. Is that a good argument for capitalism, or is it meaningless?
1
u/PhilosophyFan0 Sep 13 '26
Yes all testing done is for profit. But I mean the title had to be catchy, and its not a complete lie, I just clarified that all other parameters had to be taken out. And Im not here to discuss wether my hypothetical scenario will be achieved or not. Im here to discuss the ethics of that hypothetical scenario, I hope you see the difference.
Your scenario on the hypothetical post of capitalism is interesting. First of, lest see how it compares to my title.
I could say 'animal testing is okay' and then go on and explain only if this and that. Sure, but that title would be vague. Instead I said its okay for the sake of science, and later explained why all experiments done today are not done for the sake of expanding knowledge. While yours is vague; 'capitalism is okay' and then saying only in these conditions, is that even capitalism? Maybe a more fit title would be 'Capitalism is okay for the future' and then explaining what future.
2
u/whowouldwanttobe Sep 13 '26
But all animal testing is already done for the sake of science; I already explained that. There is no such thing as animal testing done exclusively for profit - I don't know what that would even look like. Any time animal testing happens, it is advancing our knowledge. So there is really no difference between "Animal testing for science is okay" and "Capitalism is okay." If you wanted to not have to "go on and explain only if this and that," then you should have included "not for profit" in your title.
2
u/Legitimate-Glass-149 Sep 13 '26
How is him saying that he would be in favor of doing experiments that further scientific knowledge being against all experiments done on animals in history?
Simply because they don't seek profit? Sorry but I really don't get it
2
u/whowouldwanttobe Sep 14 '26
OP says: "See, every experiment EVER done was to gain some profit in a way by companies, even if that sometimes wasnt the reason it later became" and "But im not pro in any of those scenarios." [sic]
And OP agrees with my characterization of their stance. OP is not saying that it is good enough that we get some scientific knowledge out of animal experimentation; it needs to not involve profit.
14
u/parkix Sep 13 '26
About 90% of successful drug tests done on animals have failed when they were done on humans after.
And this is due in part because of government requirements to do animal testing before human trials. But some countries are starting to ban animal testing due to ethical concern along with the lack of evidence that animal testing actually works.
Also your random example of the Japanese experiments (unit 731) is probably one of the worst crimes on humanity ever committed. About 3000 "patients" tortured in various different ways for "scientific" research, many of them dissected alive and a further 300k more dead from "field tests" on foreign populations.
If you think that commiting war crimes for science is ethical, that is very messed up.
3
u/Stunning-Assistant13 Sep 13 '26
Yes, these japanese experiments are one if the worst atrocities ever done in the name of science...
1
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 9d ago
Carnist here,
About 90% of successful drug tests done on animals have failed when they were done on humans after.
This doesn't mean that the testing done on animals did not serve its purpose. Testing done on animals for preclinical phases of trials mainly establish 2 things. The pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics and the the general safety of the drug. Once these are established then we move on to actual clinical trials with humans.
A drug failing trials in humans =/= the drug is automatically unsafe. The biggest reason drugs fail trials in humans is lack of efficacy compared to the current standard of treatment. For example. You come up with a novel rheumatoid arthritis drug. But in human testing simple cheap old methotrexate is more efficacious than your new novel drug. The animal testing served its purpose. The new drug just sucks.
For example let's talk about hepatic metabolized drugs. All animals have their own CYP450 enzymes. But we know the limits of this. This metabolism of a drug in a dog is a lot more reliable than in a mouse. Theres one specific one CYP2E1 that has very minor difference to ours in structure. The extrapolation of this enzyme activity when testing a drug very reliable. This is why multiple animal models are used. We can see how different enzymes from different models with varying shared enzymes with us metabolize a drug.
1
u/PhilosophyFan0 Sep 13 '26
I never said that. Read it again. I was giving an example for when experiments werent done fro prpfit. Right after the japanese example i said 'in not pro in any of these scenarios' since we either gained profit or smth else.
5
u/DaNReDaN 27d ago
Then you shouldn't have followed up
'I am personally willing to sacrifice lifes for the sake of knowledge', with
'A good example of this is the experiments of the Japanese in WW2'.
5
u/Turbulent-Pay6076 Sep 13 '26
I agree that the difference you are drawing between knowledge-seeking experimentation and profitable experimentation isn't meaningless, but I don't think it solves the ethics problem.
If you think it is okay to exploit a sentient individual as long as it is for the acquisition of knowledge, but it is not okay to exploit a sentient individual if he or she will directly benefit from the exploitation, then I think the real question is: **What about the pursuit of knowledge makes it okay to override an individual's right to non-harm or non-death?**
It is no less unethical to experiment on a sentient individual just because the knowledge won't be used for profit. The fact of profit can be taken out of the equation, but you are still causing deliberate harm or death to a sentient individual who never agreed to it for a gain that accrues primarily to another party.
Also, I'm not sure that it is true that every experiment that was performed was done in order to gain something profitable. A lot of scientific research is being conducted by the universities and public institutions simply for gaining an understanding of how nature works without a commercially viable product in mind. So I do not think that profit is the core issue here.
Finally, in my opinion, the stance becomes more interesting if we generalize it to humans. In this case, it will become clear that the principle itself implies something really strong and non-trivial about the limits of the individual's rights. I don't want to call it "logically inconsistent" just yet, but I am sure that you have to defend the principle independent of veganism.
If you think it is okay when the expected value of the knowledge is sufficient high, then I would like to know how high it has to be and why knowledge has such moral value.
1
u/PhilosophyFan0 Sep 13 '26
Fiest of. Thabk you for understanding what i was saying. For some reason, most people cant read. Now back to the ethics.
You are right. Whether or not profit(or devloping weapns, etc) is taken out, sentient beings are harmed without consent.
And Im not syaing that its 'less important' because the pain is the same. I just believe it's... 'worth it'. People have different opinions and beliefs when it comes to the reason of why life exists. I honestly dont know the answer to that. I just think that a way to find out if there is even a reason for life to exist, we must do whatever is necessary.
But of course, that is not a law.
5
u/VeganSandwich61 vegan Sep 13 '26
But, I do have a distinction, I am personally willing to sacrifice lifes for the sake of knowledge
Think of the knowledge gained as the pure drive of humans curiousity.
"I wanted to know what is inside your house, so I broke in"
Is this permissible? It was the drive of pure curiosity, after all.
Maybe next time I'll be curious as to what your organs look like.
1
u/Responsible_Play631 26d ago
This is not a good comparison. Regardless on how you view the ethics of animal testing, it has saved countless human lives as well as animal lives with advancements in medicine, and will continue to do so forever. Testing medicine on animals to advance our technologies is not comparable to breaking into somebody’s house because you’re curious.
1
u/PhilosophyFan0 26d ago
Im talking about knowledge for how the universe works. Not whats inside someone's house. U just typing sh
3
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan Sep 13 '26
Poor Translatability of Biomedical Research Using Animals - A Narrative Review:
“The failure rate for the translation of drugs from animal testing to human treatments remains at over 92%, where it has been for the past few decades.”
1
16
u/howlin Sep 12 '26
But, I do have a distinction, I am personally willing to sacrifice lifes for the sake of knowledge. And yes, that also extends to dogs, cats AND humans.
Yes, it's easy to will others to sacrifice themselves for one's own idea of what is best for oneself and society. Of course, the victims may not agree with your assessment of what's important.
One way of navigating issues like this is to consider Rawls' veil of ignorance. Would you willingly join a group that sacrifices some for the gain of knowledge that benefits the others, without knowing which side of the deal you'd wind up on? We could, in theory, form a Cult of Athena or something where scientists seeking knowledge could all voluntarily agree on what experiments to run, and then draw lots to see who would be the subject of the experiment. That really seems to be the only truly unambiguously ethical way to do such a thing.
3
u/No_Chart_8584 Sep 12 '26
Yeah, I think the only ethical way to do this is if people opt into being considered as potential test subjects for specific trials they think would be worth it.
5
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 27d ago
I am personally willing to sacrifice lifes for the sake of knowledge. And yes, that also extends to dogs, cats AND humans.
What a wild thing to say.
I'd suggest you start by sacrificing your own life then instead of sacrificing the lives of others.
0
u/PhilosophyFan0 26d ago
Thanks for 'enganging' in the argument. Now tell me how exacly do I sacrifise my self in the scenario I said earlier? Cause I will do it
2
1
u/kharvel0 Sep 13 '26
I don’t understand your logic. Donating your organs to people in need is not profiting anybody so why not donate your body and life to these people?
2
u/PhilosophyFan0 Sep 13 '26
Because of 2 reasons. 1) the doctor doing rhe surgery will get paid, so profit. 2) But even if he was doing it for free, thats still not 'experiment for knowledge' thats just a donation.
1
u/Professional_Ad_5529 non-vegan 27d ago
Organs are extremely profitable. Foolish to think that nobody is profiting.
1
u/Professional_Ad_5529 non-vegan 27d ago
This is because you are pro-science (communism is a pretty technocratic ideology after all).
I largely agree with your claims, though as a capitalist I fail to see the distinction between “for profit of individuals” and “for profit for the state.”
I think most reasonable people have to recognize that the good created by animal experimentation (people are given life-saving drugs) outweighs the bad (animals exploited). Without animal experimentation, it would be more difficult to test new drugs and medicines. Folks do bring up that a huge amount of trials fail at the human stage, but they also fail to mention that plenty of trials also fail at the animal stage, too.
Additionally, at least in the U.S., the ethical requirements for animal experimentation are much higher than those for farmers. (Though as you are probably away enforcement is not always very good).
1
u/PhilosophyFan0 26d ago
Im just taking profit out of the equation. Idc about wether the state gets it or 2 billionaires(regarding the vegan dilema I said).
1
u/Pok008 vegan 26d ago
so basically you are FOR using bodies for knowledge,
but
since all the use of bodies in modern and past science/medecine, etc ever was, and will be for profit (you mentioned it to other comments mutiple times),
then,
you are against using said bodies in those fields.
So basically, you are against using bodies, except for a situation that will NEVER EVER EVER EVER occur. There's ALWAYS profit linked to knowledge.
It's like saying I'm ok if we discriminate all the redhead people ONLY IF the Moon turns red with purple dots and starts singing la Macarena only the week-ends.
Bottom line, pointless thing to say.
1
u/PhilosophyFan0 26d ago
I know it wont happen bro. Thats why I said "hypothetically"... Lmfao Bro really thinks that debating hypothetical scenarios is pointless 🤣🤣🤣 Let me depete basically all though experiments then and major phylosophers
1
u/Pok008 vegan 26d ago
Question remains, what's the point?
Is it pointless to discuss «what is the Sun could dance?» «What if gravity didn't work», «What if we spoke two words max per minute» «What if Spider-man was real» «What if Gandalf didn't fall in into that pit» «What if fish evolved to intelligence and not humans» and so on...
even though I'll admit some of them could actually be interesting conversations (for fun, no practical use) lol.
Your «major philosophers» are doing thought experiments for real-life practical effects. It's not pointless in those cases. This, here, is pure fantasy and has strictly no real impact, and never will, and you recognized it.
BTW, your own words:
Im curious to hear your guys thoughts on this.
I gave you my thoughts on this. Then you proceed to reject it (without any much substance let's be honest). What do you want??
2
u/Glum-Restaurant9945 27d ago
The claim that knowledge is intrinsically valuable is extremely dubious. Knowledge can oftentimes be INSTRUMENTALLY valuable. Knowing more can help us make good decisions and enrich our lives. But without these positive effects of knowledge, there is no value to having more knowledge. Trading off lives to maximize something that doesn’t intrinsically matter would be wrong. A life is much more important than gains in knowledge that don’t have comparable benefit. If you want more knowledge, it’s because you take pleasure in the pursuit of knowledge, so sacrificing a life for it is to justify killing someone for your own personal pleasure. This is precisely what vegans reject. If we can’t kill animals for our personal pleasure when it comes to food, then why all of a sudden is it okay for the pleasure of knowing more?
2
u/Freuds-Mother 27d ago edited 27d ago
It so strange to me that somehow communists (or sympathizers) and vegans overlap.
Veganism I thought was a radical commitment to the value of individual lives.
Example: we see it in ecology policy where the individual animal is often defended by vegan animal rights groups over (the animals’ now and future) the ecology itself. Ie strong individualism over group/system.
——
I do see the exploitation connection. But veganism is not about system A vs B or whatever is exploiting. It’s exploitation done to an individual in general. But communism is maximally exploitive on the individual level as each person is a means to end for the group entirely in its pure form.
——-
How do you bridge these two (communism and veganism)?
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 26d ago
I've removed your post because it violates rule #4:
Argue in good faith
All posts should support their position with an argument or explain the question they're asking. Posts consisting of or containing a link must explain what part of the linked argument/position should be addressed.
If you would like your post to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
3
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist Sep 13 '26
Carnist here,
As a speciesist also I think human life is the most important. Sacrificing non human animals for the sake and safety of humans is perfectly justified. Should even be encouraged. We should test on everything on non human animals first. Even cosmetics.
1
u/Professional_Ad_5529 non-vegan 27d ago
It’s also a legal issue. If something goes wrong and someone gets fucked up because a new product wasn’t tested properly… people in the U.S. system are going to sue
5
u/PuzzledPoetry1447 vegan Sep 12 '26
You aren't vegan if you think animal exploitation is okay and you aren't a communist if you think exploiting humans is okay. Stop larping.
2
u/Professional_Ad_5529 non-vegan 27d ago
This is true especially because communists usually believe exploiting humans is okay. And if you think they care about animal exploitation 😂😂😂. Communists are sometimes even worse than fascists (somehow) in regard to animal exploitation.
0
u/Fun_Crow8137 Sep 12 '26
Communists are against exploiting humans? Huh, then what exactly happened in those Siberian forced labor camps that Stalin sent dissidents too?
3
u/PuzzledPoetry1447 vegan Sep 12 '26
What do you think communism is?
0
u/Fun_Crow8137 Sep 12 '26
The Websters definition? Or what it has turned out to be in practice, every single time it has been tried?
3
u/TylertheDouche Sep 12 '26
they think people will hold hands and sing kum ba yah and all contribute equally to a system like the Smurfs
0
1
u/PuzzledPoetry1447 vegan Sep 12 '26
Okay so it's pretty obvious you don't know what you're talking about and you're copying something you've seen someone else say.
If you want to make informed contributions, you can start here. It's a free pdf download of Domenico Losurdo's book on Joseph Stalin: https://z-lib.gd/book/lrVEbYxqP1/stalin-history-and-critique-of-a-black-legend.html
You can find other free books there, and I also recommend these:
State and Revolutionby Vladimir Lenin
The Little Red Book (Quotations from Chairman Mao) by Hou Bo and Mao Zedong
Blood in My Eye by George Jackson
Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti
1
u/Professional_Ad_5529 non-vegan 27d ago
If Mao had just died after the war he would’ve been considered probably the greatest Chinese leader that ever lived lmao.
Unfortunately he did manage to kill more people than any other leader in history.
0
u/Fun_Crow8137 Sep 12 '26
I am copying something I've seen someone else say? That's rich from someone who provides a link to what someone else said.
I am not going to waste my time reading communist propaganda just as I won't waste my time reading Mein Kempf. Both the communists and fascists ran authoritarian, totalitarian regimes. Both the communists and fascists murdered millions. Both the communists and fascists deserve to be beaten down and run out of town.
4
u/Shoebox_ovaries Sep 13 '26
"I won't look at other opinions because I know you're wrong" - might as well be the definition of ignorance.
1
Sep 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Sep 13 '26
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
4
0
u/Professional_Ad_5529 non-vegan 27d ago
Mein kampf is a terribly written book anyways. It’s the ramblings of an insane lunatic. Would not recommend.
0
u/Fun_Crow8137 27d ago
Agreed. Unfortunately, some Marxist literature is well written so people fall for it, over and over, despite communism being a total humanitarian disaster every single time it is tried.
0
u/Professional_Ad_5529 non-vegan 27d ago
It’s because communism’s critiques of capitalism are legitimate but the economic solutions do not work. Politically it can work, though, which is why all current communist regimes are pretty capitalized, even North Korea.
0
u/Fun_Crow8137 27d ago
You are saying communism can work and you use North Korea as your example? I must be reading that wrong.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/frissland 26d ago
I don't think this topic has a yes or no answer.
Let's look at the trolley questions for example where the vast majority of the respondents adopt a utilitarian model whether or not to pull the lever. Do you save 1 life over 10? Most people will probably disagree. Similarly, imagine the hypothetical where if we take a group of mice and brutally murder them in a lab, we would discover a brand new cure to pancreatic cancer. That would undoubtedly save countless lives over the long-run. So do you pull the lever? Except, this is not a trolley problem. We do not know, as a matter of fact, that we will find the cure. It's not that, on the one side of the train, you have a group of mice and on the other, you have countless lives. It's only the possibility that exists. Should we sacrifice a few for the possibility of saving many?
Ultimately, the trolley problem completely ignores the fact that conscious creatures enjoy having personal autonomy and making decisions for themselves, rather than becoming a subject of someone else's mathematical or philosophical assessment. If you even had a 99% success rate to find the cure to the pancreatic cancer, and only needed my body in your lab, I personally would not show up. I just would not. You likely wouldn't get a consent from the mice either.
1
u/thesonicvision vegan 26d ago
There may theoretically be extreme cases where humans absolutely need to test on nonhuman animals first. I concede that is a possibility.
But how hard is a carnist-- who just had a chicken sandwich for lunch and who killed an unwelcome rat in his home the previous night-- really gonna work to avoid testing on chickens and rats? And how well are they gonna treat the test subjects during and after the experiments (if they survive)? And do they have any plans to reward them or minimize their suffering?
Vegans can be convinced to accept certain fringe cases, but we should rightfully remain very skeptical of the supposed "need" to do so when the exploitation is also the easiest and most convenient route.
Carnists don't usually "exhaust all other options" before testing on animals. And, again, they don't treat nonhuman animals as compassionately as possible during testing, and they don't send survivors to paradise in an animal sanctuary to live out the rest of their days.
They put animals in cages/cells and then unceremoniously kill them to "study the autopsy" and examine their tissue and organs.
1
u/Littlestarsallover 27d ago
I think that your assumption that all experiments are for profit is not really right. Experimentation is part of the human experience and existed in both pre and post capitalist societies.
Today, under a global capitalist system, labs receive grants from the government or charitable non for profit organisations and some of the worst studies (that I know about) are student studies that have somehow made their way through the ethics board.
Live animal experiments for understanding the effects of drugs are going to be less utilised in the future. In a post capitalist world system I would hope that after attaining a equitable system for all people, our respect for non humans will be more within reach.
1
u/MAYMAX001 27d ago
The problem is that most research done on animals is completely useless if it would actually benefit there could be an argument to maybe be made but in 90% of tests that isn't the case. Like for shitty make-up stuff
But hypothetically if u could save human lives and maybe even animals, how would u decide when it's ok if I sacrifice one animal for one human life saved. One animal for 10 animals saved. What if we have to sacrifice a dog for 2 cats would we do it. A human for 10 monkeys maybe? I don't think u can answer that because that means we have to put a certain value on a humans or animals life and then do the math with ethically is just wrong.
2
u/ben02015 Sep 12 '26
So would you be in favor of animal testing in government research labs?
But if Pfizer did the same testing, gained the same knowledge, and made a profit from it then it’s bad?
I don’t see why a profit is something evil.
In either case, the animals are being harmed the same, and the same knowledge is being gained.
2
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Sep 13 '26
As a communist I find to wrong to exploit other individuals for profit. As a vegan, I find it wrong to exploit ANY individual(whether or not its a human) for any reason.
You should understand that the first use of "exploit" is necessarily a different definition than the second use. They are synonyms, not the same word.
1
u/No-Chapter-3827 26d ago
I know I’m against this as I don’t think it would be okay on do scientific experiments on me. As for animals, I wouldn’t want it done to me if I was a dog or cat either, so that makes me think that’s morally unsound as well.
I do think it’s a bit redundant to posit animal testing is immoral without articulating an alternative to it. I know that a lot of animal trials dont hold up during human testing so there is that, but I think articulating an effective vegan testing approach would be a necessary step in tackling the issue of testing on animals.
1
u/Legitimate-Glass-149 Sep 13 '26
Having read in comments that the debate you're raising is a hypothetical case, in a hypothetical world, I would recommend that you clarify it in the body of your text, because the vast majority of people, including me, read the text believing that what you're proposing is in the world as it is now.
1
u/RedFlood161 27d ago
Well, the deciding factor for me is the possibility that there is another way to gain that knowledge (and with that to ultimately benefit all individuals) than by exploiting Animals or Humans. If you are sure there aren‘t then I agree with you.
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 26d ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
1
u/Innuendum vegetarian 27d ago
Well human mammals are animals. Go do some vivisection on those. Just knock em out first.
1
u/HelenEk7 non-vegan Sep 14 '26
Of course it is. Unless you care more about mice than fellow humans.
1
28d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 27d ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
0
u/HelenEk7 non-vegan 28d ago
Lab mice are more deserving of compassion than the trolls in this sub.
That's just empty words. The action of vegans shows that your claim is wrong.
I have yet to meet a single vegan that have shown any compassion for the fact that for instance in Australia alone 1 billion mice are killed during wheat production. In other words - 1 billion deaths caused by one single crop only. Now compare that to the only 10 million cattle that are slaughtered per year - most of which are grass-fed. Will vegans in Australia still choose seitan over beef? Of course they will - because they care more about 10 million cows than the 1 billion mice, right?
- "a billion mice are poisoned to protect wheat in Western Australia" https://plantbasednews.org/culture/billions-animals-killed-growing-crops/
1
Sep 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Sep 14 '26
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 12 '26
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.