Instigator / Pro
6
1515
rating
2
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#456

Animal Experimentation

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
0
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

PhilSam95
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1484
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

Full Topic: Is the Harmful use of Sentient Non-Human Animals in Biomedical Experimentation Morally Evil?

This is a debate on the moral permissibility of animal experimentation used for medical research for the benefit of human beings. Pro will defend the claim that animal experimentation is morally wrong, whereas Con will argue that it is morally permissible. Below is a list of assumptions for our debate that cannot be challenged. Although these assumptions are interesting, arguing about these points in this debate would shift it away from the applied ethical issue at hand.

Assumptions for debate:
Moral realism is true.
Animals *feel* pleasure and pain to a similar degree with humans.

Structure:
First round is for opening statements by Pro and Con (no rebuttals).
Second round is for first rebuttals.
Third round is for second rebuttals and concluding remarks.

The following definitions were influenced by the google:
Animal - any organism of the Kingdom Animalia, as opposed to those of the Kingdoms Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaeabacteria, and Eubacteria.

Animal experimentation:
An animal test is any scientific experiment or test in which a live animal is forced to undergo something that is likely to cause them pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.

Biomedical experiment:
The area of science devoted to the study of the processes of life, the prevention, and treatment of disease, and the genetic and environmental factors related to disease and health. ... A basic researcher's experiments add pieces to the immensely complex puzzles of life.

Morally evil:
morally wrong, one has a moral duty not to do it; can’t do it.

Morally permissible:
Not morally wrong, okay to perform, this is morally acceptable.

Good luck!

-->
@PhilSam95
@Sleek

I will try to get a vote on this, looks good so far.

Conclusion:

This was a very tough debate - as both sides were excellent.

I feel that con offered a very strong defense of his framework, which was equally well rebutted by pro. In general, I felt that pro successfully argued that cons framework was not sufficient in appealing to both moral intuition and the adhoc feeling of many of cons points.

I particularly felt that pointing out the ad-hoc nature - and specific animal torture were the primary reasons for this. Pro and con offered me no other real method to judge the frameworks as accurate reflections of reality other than my intuition of the moral issues presented - and as a result, I have to judge the framework on that standard. I did not feel cons arguments were sufficiently convincing to convey exactly why he felt the additional rules and caveats were objectively valid and not simply adhoc modifications.

Pro a framework felt like several frameworks at times to support his position. However, these felt more intuitive - appeals to the infliction of pain to anything is more in tune with intuition with all the moral considerations presented. These did need to be fleshed out more than they were, and wouldn’t have won on their own as a result.

As a result of this, I feel I have to award arguments to pro.

Saying this - this debate was far above average and was excellent on both sides. While I feel pro did win this debate, 3 points does not fully reflect how good Con was. I feel as a result it would be fair to reduce this to two points - as it better reflects the small difference between voters, PhilSam (and the mod team) has graciously agreed for me to alot a single point to con. Note this is not for spelling and grammar, but allotted as an argument point in order to give pro a delta of 2 points.

If meaning is why humans are worth more, comes from rationality - those without rationality (according to R1) have less meaning and are worth less. Con argues that it’s not rationality from which we derive meaning - but the potential capacity for it as a species - Pro provides no argument I can see for why potential (rather than actual) capacity implies worth. This makes me feel that cons argument has a hint of special pleading. However pro appears to concede the logical validity here so I am reluctant to weigh in.

Pro objection to basing worth decisions like this on potential capacity is interesting - that it is absurd to treat this potential of the species as something that must be judged against the individual. It feels on its face a bit of a clunky comparison.

I found pros argument that pros explanation is unduly complex and not parsimonious fairly compelling, pro introduces a new explanation based on individual desire not to be harmed to be much better than his original argument from sentience - but feel his explanation is a bit lacking in depth.

2.) the immorality of inflicting pain is more of a guiding framework than rationality.

This is a potential a third framework (though may be an extension of the desire not to be harmed). While it appears valid on its face, pro does not really advocate strongly for this framework.

However - I found no place where this was satisfactorily addresses by con. Given the implicit way these frameworks are being judged, I’m looking for con to compare the pain example to our moral intuition, and explain why it explains it less well - I don’t think pro does that well, and it is only truly in the final round to which pro cannot respond are the reasons better thrashed out.

3.) Pro argues that cons framework would treat “objectively” immoral actions against animals as perfectly fine.

Con seems to concede these points, and agrees - by concluding that these things aren’t actually immoral.

Arguments: the opening round of this debate neatly dove tails together from both side.

Con is arguing that experimentation is immoral - basing this primarily on the justification used to argue animals are less important can be applied to humans to.

Con argues that simple species membership fails to explain this difference - and that only sentience is a good criteria for assessing moral relevance.

Pro is arguing the converse - that it is moral as the principle of rationality makes humans more important on the grounds of the perception of truth gives rational beings lives more meaning - and thus worth less. In addition that arguing that as animals can’t reason on the basis of good and bad, they aren’t affected by pain the same way - rendering not inflicting pain a preference rather than duty.

On its face thus far, I find pros argument more convincing as they clearly set out value, and provide a more intuitive appeal to morality for me by questioning whether there is any reason to treat animals differently - whilst I find cons argument about objective truth to be, ironically, incredibly subjective. I do feel pros argument from sentience inherently suffers the same issues as he points out - though he uses it to rule animals in rather than out.

So moving on!

1.) Pro reiterates that cons framework means human infant lives are worth less, and do not cover live in a way that is agreeably moral. This is intuitive to me.

Con helps me out by conceding the logical validity of pros case. But then explains it is not the rationality of the individual, but the potential capacity of the species to be rational that allows us to exclude the exemptions that pro points out. I will not lie - the presentation is phenomenal here - but my issue with this as presented, is that in my view con strictly tied worth to meaning of life which derives from rationality in R1- I cannot reconcile how both his rebuttal here and his opening arguments as both true:

Notes from the voter:

A.) there was a lot of long explanation of the opponents side. This often made it harder to disentangle where the real argument was. Summaries are fine, but it’s okay to let your opponent present their position and to focus on only rebuttals - the voters will work it out.

B.) Both side conceded the validity of the other sides logic to some degree in places. This can be dangerous for both sides if one conceded the validity of an argument the voter would otherwise view as unsupported or unwarranted, it can change voting calculus. Be careful on this front - best use language like “if one were to accept this...” unless you’re 1000% sure!

C.) both arguments appear implicitly appeal to my moral compass as a voter, that if I find something immoral that one of your frameworks shows is moral : then the framework is invalid. In the absence of anything else, this is my main criteria for judging morality unless told otherwise - assuming I’m not a psychopath it should be okay!

D) my paradigm - for clarity - is in my profile.

E.) in my view, this is the best debate I have voted on. It was very well written and explained from both sides. Well done.

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: stvitus // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments and 2 points to pro for sources
>Reason for Decision:
Sleek's arguments were more compelling, and PhilSam repeatedly resorted to reformulations of previously refuted arguments as well as claiming objections to Sleek's argument which were equally applicable to his own. PhilSam frequently made recourse to generic thought experiments, even resorting to using a work of fiction as a counterexample in one case. Neither debater provided consistently reliable sources, but PhilSam's were generally more specific, going back to the original source of the ideas rather than an exposition of said source. Regardless, neither cited directly the passages from whence borrowed arguments originated, citing rather open resources on the Internet which, if not always subject to the same objections to credibility as Wikipedia, often represent only one interpretation of a given work. The problem with such citations is that neither debater employing them can justify their basis in the text from which they are derived, leaving the foundations of his argument open to hermeneutical objections. Spelling and grammar mistakes were negligible, and conduct was equally formal and cordial on either side. Overall an interesting question and a good exercise in critical thinking. This first-time reader has found it to be an excellent introduction to this online community.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments to determine who won each, or weigh the main arguments to determine a winner. In order to cast a sufficient ballot, the voter should do all three of these things.
************************************************************************

test

I am con on anal experimentation

This was a quality debate that deserves a quality vote. I will try to vote on it when I've got time.