Philosophy Discussion Forums

Apologies for mis reading you re hunting, Gene. Do I need to elaborate on 'life review?' Ok: Many dying people become witness via their conscience, to a review of their whole life right down to every poignant detail; attitudes,words spoken, actions and non actions are all taken to account and surface synchronistically for review before that person releases. It can be summarised as a 'coming to terms' with one's life. Naturally, not everyone witnesses this review - many people take account and responsibility for their speech, actions and non action consciously while alive, though such self aware people are in a minority due to dominance of the ego. No neuro scientist is able to elaborate on this phenomenon because the experience is totally subjective. What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you believe you will be comfortable with yourself at the end of your life? Will you release in peace? Now that may be a point for a padigm shift, what?

Stormcloud wrote:Apologies for mis reading you re hunting, Gene. Do I need to elaborate on 'life review?' Ok: Many dying people become witness via their conscience, to a review of their whole life right down to every poignant detail; attitudes,words spoken, actions and non actions are all taken to account and surface synchronistically for review before that person releases. It can be summarised as a 'coming to terms' with one's life. Naturally, not everyone witnesses this review - many people take account and responsibility for their speech, actions and non action consciously while alive, though such self aware people are in a minority due to dominance of the ego. No neuro scientist is able to elaborate on this phenomenon because the experience is totally subjective. What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you believe you will be comfortable with yourself at the end of your life? Will you release in peace? Now that may be a point for a padigm shift, what?

Funny when we call things "subjective" when the conclusions do not fit our agenda. I suppose the "We are just matter" opinion has "objective" evidence in its favour?

Stormcloud wrote: Apologies for mis reading you re hunting, Gene. Do I need to elaborate on 'life review?' Ok: Many dying people become witness via their conscience, to a review of their whole life right down to every poignant detail; attitudes,words spoken, actions and non actions are all taken to account and surface synchronistically for review before that person releases. It can be summarised as a 'coming to terms' with one's life. Naturally, not everyone witnesses this review - many people take account and responsibility for their speech, actions and non action consciously while alive, though such self aware people are in a minority due to dominance of the ego.

Fair enough. I wasn’t sure if I was being threatened with divine judgment/retribution. I agree – the “deathbed perspective” is healthy and shouldn’t be too far removed from our thoughts.

Look, I’ll be honest – I’m not immune to the ethical conundrums surrounding animal research. I’m actually working on a doctorate in neuroscience myself, and while I find the field fascinating, I’m often troubled by the animal sacrifice that has made much of this knowledge possible. Personally, I don’t do animal research; I mainly study perception using psychophysics and neuroimaging. My research subjects are a rather peculiar species known as college undergraduates, who inflict more suffering on me then I do on them.

If we were to have a large-scale reform on animal ethics, research should be the last to go, preceded by meat consumption, fur, hunting, zoos, etc – as these do nothing but gratify impulse and vanity.

Let me try and illustrate the predicament scientists might find themselves in

1. Scientists can sacrifice animals for the sake of medical & scientific knowledge – like it or not, this serves as the foundation of modern medicine. Countless lives have been saved, numerous diseases have been cured and our life expectancy has nearly tripled. However, scientists are vilified for abusing animals.

2. Scientists can cease using animals in research. This brings medicine as we know it to a screeching halt. Potentially curable disease falls into the hands of quacks and charlatans, scientists are chided for not contributing to society.

3. Scientists continue medical research without using animals. Now humans essentially become the guinea pigs – trying the first waves of previously untested and poorly understood treatments and medications. Imagine the reputation we would have in this scenario.

Choose one.

If we were to have a large-scale reform on animal ethics, research should be the last to go, preceded by meat consumption, fur, hunting, zoos, etc – as these do nothing but gratify impulse and vanity.

Very good point. From a purely utilitarian suffering-versus-benefit perspective, animal research clearly wins hands down over, for example, factory farming of cows just because we kind of like the taste of beefburgers. Trouble is, most people's ethical senses are not based on such a perspective but on a vague peer-led notion of what seems instinctively to be "natural".

Dolphin42 wrote: Very good point. From a purely utilitarian suffering-versus-benefit perspective, animal research clearly wins hands down over, for example, factory farming of cows just because we kind of like the taste of beefburgers. Trouble is, most people's ethical senses are not based on such a perspective but on a vague peer-led notion of what seems instinctively to be "natural".

Agreed. Our treatment of animals is overall quite atrocious - research imo is the only case to be made with an ethical justification of some sort.

Actually the problem with animal testing in fields related to consciousness, is that you take for granted the hypothesis that we and other animals like mice are similar in all things while we could be NOT...

Assumptions are the most dangerous things in science.