Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Sculptor1]

Ultimately, it's large numbers that lead to such desensitisation/dehumanisation. When beings exist in large numbers they may only be considered to be rare and precious as individuals to those who know them, but they are worth little as members of demographic groups. Just a number. Data points.

Yes, we see this as Israel pretends its actions are justified. They use conditioning through lies, and linguistic manipulation.

We see this in the slavish hatred of Jews and Israel.

am Jewish.
I suppose you are going to call me a self-hating jew for being against genocide??

How predictable.

[Sculptor1]

Sy Borg is right. There's conditioning at every level, starting with education — social conformance conditioning — and ending with torture, I suppose.

He's a prime example of racial conditioning, where everything Isreal does is good and all critiques of Israel are bad.

As regards the dogs, we have always had an unfortunate tendency to treat everything in the world, often including ourselves or each other, as if it's just there to be used as we see fit. We don't see other living things as such, but only as things for us to use as we wish.

I realise that as a person raised in the UK my attitude to dogs and homeless children is not typical.
Nonetheless even on an objective level it is clear that they possess many of the same characteristics that the superior race of Israelis do too.

[Sy Borg]

Ultimately, it's large numbers that lead to such desensitisation/dehumanisation. When beings exist in large numbers they may only be considered to be rare and precious as individuals to those who know them, but they are worth little as members of demographic groups. Just a number. Data points.

Yes, we see this as Israel pretends its actions are justified. They use conditioning through lies, and linguistic manipulation.

We see this in the slavish hatred of Jews and Israel.

am Jewish.
I suppose you are going to call me a self-hating jew for being against genocide??
:D :D
How predictable.

Why are you only against this "genocide" and show zero interest in any others, that are actual genocides?

[Sculptor1]

Ultimately, it's large numbers that lead to such desensitisation/dehumanisation. When beings exist in large numbers they may only be considered to be rare and precious as individuals to those who know them, but they are worth little as members of demographic groups. Just a number. Data points.

Yes, we see this as Israel pretends its actions are justified. They use conditioning through lies, and linguistic manipulation.

We see this in the slavish hatred of Jews and Israel.

am Jewish.
I suppose you are going to call me a self-hating jew for being against genocide??

How predictable.

Why are you only against this "genocide" and show zero interest in any others, that are actual genocides?

I find your attitude abhorrent. Not sure why you persist.

[Bluemist]

I find your attitude abhorrent. Not sure why you persist.

But that goes for you as well in both arguments. Indiscriminate morally absolute judgment against animal or human research that you seem to hold does not stand a chance against the good in fact that is gained by humanity from the animal research that leads to medical and pharmaceutical advances otherwise unobtainable. Because of this, laws restrict human researches but not animal researches. Abhorrent but necessary. At best we can hide our heads in the sand and ignore the cruelty to laboratory animals, but we have to live with it in shame.

Elsewhere, your being Jewish does not excuse your equally despicable attitude toward Israel and by extension against all Jews everywhere including yourself. Unfortunately, when you march in a pro-Palestinian protest you are by default also marching in favor of the most heinous type of terrorism of Hamas and others, that in cold blood will continue to commit the atrocities that was carried out in Israel.

Consider this, if that happened in your own country how would your nation respond differently? Would you still voice the moral absolute at your own peril, or is that only reserved for Jews?

Here, in the US we conducted an extended bloody war against terrorism that is always simmering. And I don't see many supporting those terrorists.

[Pattern-chaser]

Indiscriminate morally absolute judgment against animal or human research that you seem to hold does not stand a chance against the good in fact that is gained by humanity from the animal research that leads to medical and pharmaceutical advances otherwise unobtainable.

When WW2 ended, we discovered some very unpleasant things about death camps, and Mengeler's experiments on human subjects. The almost-universal reaction to his actions was disapproval; they were found to be unacceptable. The vast majority of us agree with this conclusion, and rightly so, IMO.

But here you seem to say that if Mengeler had restricted himself to non-human subjects, his doings would've been fine? Are other animals so different from human animals, that what is vile and unacceptable when done to human animals is actually praiseworthy () when done to non-human animals, for the benefit of human animals? Is it your position that this is not only acceptable, but actually desirable?

[Bluemist]

But here you seem to say that if Mengeler had restricted himself to non-human subjects, his doings would've been fine?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I am only talking about life saving and life improvement medical research that is officially approved by the scientific community.

For example, cancer treatment medical procedures and drugs that prolong life for everyone. Modern drugs are immensely expensive to develop because after a supposed discovery they must be proved effective and safe for human use. Effectiveness can sometimes be proven biochemically, as for example for penicillin, but safety can only be proven by application to many unfortunate mice, guinea pigs, or larger animals. But human experimentation is prohibited, except for keeping track of results and side effects in practice after the drugs are released to the public.

[Bluemist]

I forgot human trials after the animal studies. Statistically enough human volunteers or recruits are also studied for long-term safety, just in case, before official approval and release of drugs.

[Sculptor1]

I find your attitude abhorrent. Not sure why you persist.

But that goes for you as well in both arguments. Indiscriminate morally absolute judgment against animal or human research that you seem to hold does not stand a chance against the good in fact that is gained by humanity from the animal research that leads to medical and pharmaceutical advances otherwise unobtainable. Because of this, laws restrict human researches but not animal researches. Abhorrent but necessary. At best we can hide our heads in the sand and ignore the cruelty to laboratory animals, but we have to live with it in shame.

I am making an observation that a conditioned reflex is a poor interpretation of what is going on. Although there is a moral aspect to this, it in no way reflects on the practical aspects of the failed experiment.
So did you have ANY evidence that this example has led to ANY "medical and pharmaceutical advances otherwise unobtainable.", are are you, as I think, just blowing hot air.
Please give examples!

Elsewhere, your being Jewish does not excuse your equally despicable attitude toward Israel and by extension against all Jews everywhere including yourself. Unfortunately, when you march in a pro-Palestinian protest you are by default also marching in favor of the most heinous type of terrorism of Hamas and others, that in cold blood will continue to commit the atrocities that was carried out in Israel.

Isreal is killing thousands of children. How do you justify that?

Consider this, if that happened in your own country how would your nation respond differently? Would you still voice the moral absolute at your own peril, or is that only reserved for Jews?

What is the "IT" to which you refer?

I suppose you think that the horrors of Palestine/Isreal started Oct 7th?
LOL

Now "if it happened in my country"...
It imposition of the Isreali state upon the Palestinian one is completely unprecedented.
However Northern Ireland is a partition situation, and I can tell you that at no time since 1921 did the UK attack Ireland for the actions of the IRA in the North.
That is as close to answering your question.
The UK did not:
cut off food
destory the education system by the systematic destruction of schools and universities
Raise hospitals to the ground.
kill doctors and nurse.
run people armed with bags of flour over with tanks.
target children with snipers.
block humanitarian aid.
nor do they teach jewish white superiority to the children in schools.

Here, in the US we conducted an extended bloody war against terrorism that is always simmering. And I don't see many supporting those terrorists.

THe USA is funding terrorism all over the world.
WHat planet do you live on?
THere has been a steady war agains democracy all over the world on you tax dollar.

[Bluemist]

I am making an observation that a conditioned reflex is a poor interpretation of what is going on. Although there is a moral aspect to this, it in no way reflects on the practical aspects of the failed experiment.
So did you have ANY evidence that this example has led to ANY "medical and pharmaceutical advances otherwise unobtainable.", are are you, as I think, just blowing hot air.
Please give examples!

You need to read some wiki articles on the topic so we can at least use common standard language
<Medical_research>
<Animal_testing>
<Ivan_Pavlov#Studies_of_digestion>

Isreal is killing thousands of children. How do you justify that?

I don't.
Before you ask a question like that you should try to get your Hamas propaganda straight. Again, from wiki:
<Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion>

[Sy Borg]

I find your attitude abhorrent. Not sure why you persist.

But that goes for you as well in both arguments. Indiscriminate morally absolute judgment against animal or human research that you seem to hold does not stand a chance against the good in fact that is gained by humanity from the animal research that leads to medical and pharmaceutical advances otherwise unobtainable. Because of this, laws restrict human researches but not animal researches. Abhorrent but necessary. At best we can hide our heads in the sand and ignore the cruelty to laboratory animals, but we have to live with it in shame.

Elsewhere, your being Jewish does not excuse your equally despicable attitude toward Israel and by extension against all Jews everywhere including yourself. Unfortunately, when you march in a pro-Palestinian protest you are by default also marching in favor of the most heinous type of terrorism of Hamas and others, that in cold blood will continue to commit the atrocities that was carried out in Israel.

Consider this, if that happened in your own country how would your nation respond differently? Would you still voice the moral absolute at your own peril, or is that only reserved for Jews?

Here, in the US we conducted an extended bloody war against terrorism that is always simmering. And I don't see many supporting those terrorists.

Thanks for speaking up. I've been carrying this can alone for a while now and, really, I'd rather talk about something that's not base media fodder.

Meanwhile, Sculptor thinks it is abhorrent that I keep pointing to the disaster in Sudan - a war that anti-Israel fanatics not only ignore, but consider it offensive to even mention it! Logically, if one is concerned about human rights, one worries about all the worst conflicts. Yet, it's the opposite. Palestine is more than ten times less lethal than either the Syrian or Yemeni wars - but we heard not a peep in contrast. Sudan has also been far more lethal and damaging - yet another Muslim-driven war - not word. Both the media and most people on social media, including here.

As for treatment of laboratory animals, I'm guessing that anything we do in the west will be less extreme than much of the research conducted in eastern countries. In the east, scientists are far more likely to perform dire experiments, not unlike the 19th century. Still, progress is unpredictable. In the past, quite a few breakthroughs came at the expense of experimental victims https://www.statnews.com/2015/11/13/med ... so-useful/, and it's easy to imagine that, say, China's genetic engineering will progress more quickly that the more-careful west.

If AI becomes sentient, that will create another complication. Again, China is less squeamish about having to break a few eggs to bake a cake, so they have an advantage in this area too (if the lack of ethical controls doesn't backfire).

[Pattern-chaser]

But here you seem to say that if Mengeler had restricted himself to non-human subjects, his doings would've been fine?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I am only talking about life saving and life improvement medical research that is officially approved by the scientific community.

Then you have missed my point entirely. If something would not be allowed to be done to human animals, what possible moral justification can there be for doing it to other animals? These other animals are imprisoned, enslaved, and (depending on the outcome of the so-called 'tests') tortured to death. All this, even though human animals often don't react to pharmaceuticals the same way other animals do, so their suffering is actually pointless.

Perhaps if we want these drugs developing, we should try them on ourselves? I think their effect on billionaires should translate well to the rest of humanity...?

[Bluemist]

... pointing to the disaster in Sudan - a war that anti-Israel fanatics not only ignore, but consider it offensive to even mention it! Logically, if one is concerned about human rights, one worries about all the worst conflicts. Yet, it's the opposite. Palestine is more than ten times less lethal than either the Syrian or Yemeni wars - but we heard not a peep in contrast. Sudan has also been far more lethal and damaging - yet another Muslim-driven war - not word. Both the media and most people on social media, including here.

As for treatment of laboratory animals, I'm guessing that anything we do in the west will be less extreme than much of the research conducted in eastern countries. ...

I believe that all wars are about immoral killing of people on both sides, with political consequences favoring the winner (except for Israel where the military victor loses politically).

And you are right, we never hear about all those massacres in the 'third-world' empowered by proliferation of past generation arms and ammunition, nor of the cold war being actively waged to gain control of land and resources. They just don't matter, do they??

[Bluemist]

Then you have missed my point entirely. If something would not be allowed to be done to human animals, what possible moral justification can there be for doing it to other animals?

No moral justification is possible for causing or allowing any form of cruel treatment of people or animals. Otherwise what would be the point of morality at all? Can my standards of morality be different from your standards of morality?

These other animals are imprisoned, enslaved, and (depending on the outcome of the so-called 'tests') tortured to death. All this, even though human animals often don't react to pharmaceuticals the same way other animals do, so their suffering is actually pointless.

Opinions, laws, and practice of war, cruelty and sanctioned murder differ from standards of morality, and this difference of point of view is the source of varying degrees of justified moral outrage.

Can animal cruelty be justified? According to laws in different countries based on their medical and economic interests, it can.
But if I take an absolutist moral stance, then to be logically consistent, I'll have to be a vegetarian, without personal use of medication, cosmetics, or surgery.

Tragically, objective facts of the world, personal circumstances, and subjective opinions usually based on false truths lead to conflicting judgments that lead to wars, cruelty, and murder in our lifetime. Look at Ukraine, for example. Both sides are getting massacred pointlessly because of wholly mistaken belief in political rights. Russia can stop the war at any time, but can Ukraine?

[Sy Borg]

... pointing to the disaster in Sudan - a war that anti-Israel fanatics not only ignore, but consider it offensive to even mention it! Logically, if one is concerned about human rights, one worries about all the worst conflicts. Yet, it's the opposite. Palestine is more than ten times less lethal than either the Syrian or Yemeni wars - but we heard not a peep in contrast. Sudan has also been far more lethal and damaging - yet another Muslim-driven war - not word. Both the media and most people on social media, including here.

As for treatment of laboratory animals, I'm guessing that anything we do in the west will be less extreme than much of the research conducted in eastern countries. ...

I believe that all wars are about immoral killing of people on both sides, with political consequences favoring the winner (except for Israel where the military victor loses politically).

And you are right, we never hear about all those massacres in the 'third-world' empowered by proliferation of past generation arms and ammunition, nor of the cold war being actively waged to gain control of land and resources. They just don't matter, do they??

No, the media carefully curates the direction of people's attention. For years I figured claims that universities were inculcating students with Marxism to be a "far right" conspiracy theory. However, seeing Ivy League presidents saying that calls for Jewish genocide might not be against university rules, based on context. My jaw was on the floor when I saw it. Replace "Jews" with any other group (other than "whites") and there would have been hell to pay. Then there was the redefinition of racism so that it was impossible for anyone to be "racist" against white people.

Now it's clear. The reason why none of these other conflicts are of interest to the so-called "intelligentsia" is because they can't be framed with the west deemed as The Oppressor over The Oppressed - the latter group is afforded no moral agency and generally considered to be incapable of serious wrongdoing, like children or animals. Thus, Hamas's use of killing, torture and human shields are considered to be justified.

Universalism has gone out the window - the idea that war is in itself just a massive waste of humans, animals, social and political systems, infrastructure and the poor, tortured lands turned into dust bowls. No warfare is positive, but history tells us that it is inevitable. Life and this world requires destruction to grow, and is none too fussy about how it happens.

In this context, reductionism is only one of science's issues. Worse is the corruption of academia, not just by aforementioned Marxists, but also corporate lucre, eg. Big Pharma's influence on medical and chemical research. Academics rely on hard-to-come-by grant money, so it's inevitable that many will sell out, especially when there are intense cost of living pressures.