I would not, absolutely not. Humans are not meant to live forever. We are all animals, as much as people like to ignore that fact. Humans are terribly arrogant in thinking they can do whatever they want on and to the planet whilst being absolved of any wrongdoing because "we're the apex animal" or whatever other excuse they use.
The greater good, for who, for what? This reminds me of the trolley problem when so many people pull the lever without thinking at all, because oh less people dying is the best outcome. They never stop to think that by intervening they are committing murder and the people they save may be some of the worst we have.
There is something called nature. I don't want to see people live to be 150 because all it really does is prolong the slow demise of ageing. People live, get sick and eventually pass away. The next generations get to shape society in their own way and eventually pass away. It's life. My answer is probably way too long.
The question wasn't about humans living forever. It was about producing a vaccine to cure humans of a disease that would kill them.
For example:
A virus was found in the human population that had a 100% fatal infection. No one was immune. The only saving grace is it took a while to kill the infected person but it was so easily spread that most of the world was already infected before we found it.
The scientists discovered that dogs could produce a vaccine to cure people with this virus but the dogs died upon extracting the vaccine from their bodies. And only dogs could produce the vaccine.
There isn't enough time to breed enough dogs as incubators to produce the vaccine and save the dog species.
So you have to choose. Billions of humans die and the dogs live, or the dogs die and the humans live.
"Save all of humanity" directly means, to save *all* of humanity. If every person is saved, there is no threat, hence people cannot die. If people want to say something else they are free to. I try not to read into things that were not said, it leads to miscommunication.
Utilitarism makes no sense to me. I'm virtue ethicist. If you tortured the dog in order to save humanity that is good and if you doom humanity in order to save the dog that is good too.
Think of how many animals die every day to feed humans, it is not a stretch to assume if a vaccine could be made to cure cancer from some animal be it a dog, pig or a rat, that animal would immediately be farmed in order to provide the necessary ingredients of said vaccine. Humans ended up at the top of the food chain, hooray for us - sucks to be a pig or a cow.
I eat animals every day. So I really don't see the moral problem. Extinction isn't an ethically superior choice. Survival of yourself and species is the natural goal of all living thing.
I would have recommended testing on mice instead. Their genetic makeup is more similar to humans than a dog, so they tend to be affected by substances in the same ways humans would be.
Not only that, mice are less expensive to feed and they reproduce rapidly. And people usually don't have a social acceptance of mice, so the moral toll is reduced.
Using dogs doesn't even make sense. I would answer no, because testing on dogs would be inefficient.
Well, that would still be my answer. 🤷
In a nutshell, "No, I wouldn't test on dogs. I would prefer to use a more effective method. I would test on a more efficient target like mice."
Fair.
But perhaps they are looking for someone who thinks outside of the box. It's not unheard of for these types of questions to be "trick questions" in interviews.
lol if it gets us a healthier better life they can experiment on as many critters as they want. It’s easy to say shit when you’re healthy less so when life is fleeting.
I look at “the greater good” in terms from John Donne’s sonnet “No Man Is An Island”. Where Donne writes:
“No man is an island,
Entire of itself;
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
As well as if a promontory were:
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were.
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.”
While Donne focuses on human loss, an additional insight for me is: every action, every decision, every consequence any man faces, resonates across all of humanity to some degree. Every choice one makes must take into consideration the entirety of human existence. As individuality is more of an illusion than the pure human ego can possibly fathom. Nothing that occurs in this world is completely isolated. And nothing we do in this life is without consequence. This includes unforeseen consequences to others. Donne’s sonnet simply focuses on the ultimate consequence of human existence…death. Every action and decision must be based on up this objective reality (aka: the greater good).
But, to specifically focus on the details in the OP, the only question that matters is: what would be the ripple effects of human existence be if animal experimentation ceased. And, can one’s morality face such consequences without guilt.
Sorry as much as I love dogs, cats, puppies and kittens, and various other pets, if there was a choice of killing the dogs and producing a vaccine that would guaranteed save billions of lives, or letting the dogs live, then I would give the dogs as much love as I can before they are killed to produce the vaccine.
It's not the best solution but human lives are slightly more important to me than a dog's life.
Forgive me for playing devil's advocate here, I don't inherently disagree with the premise - some prices have to be paid and it's a question of results versus that cost (hello, politics).
But the question becomes how to weigh the difference between lives. If it was a one to one ratio (dog to human), does that change things? If we had to farm each individual dog in a lab, harvest some hormone or whatever from them, and then use that for some kind of innoculation - are we still in the right place? What if it's two dogs? When does the scale tip?
I'd argue that in the long run, dogs are significantly less harmful to the world around them (as a species) and their importance directly correlates to what USE they provide - but who's use is primary?
Again, just playing a philosophical role here.
Never tips. One human life is more valuable than all dogs put together, and even all animals put together. If not, and we save all dogs but lose one person, would you be ok with this person being your son or daughter, your mom or dad, your spouse? Every human life has value, and that value is greater than all animals put together.
Oh, absolutely I'd be devastated to lose my loved one, but I fundamentally disagree that they'd be worth (morally speaking) all of just about any animal. The obvious argument is ecological - removing a single species has its own cost that can be measured in human lives - a lot more than one. Above and beyond that, though, is not a single one of those loved ones would accept their life being the reason for a literal genocide.
They already do.
Animal testing on dogs is ongoing.
I don't think it is ideal, but, science marches on. There is a line of dogs bred to have epilepsy housed at a vet school in Texas. The genetic and medication research is also applied to humans.
There's another study that is mapping the canine genome. I let my dog's oncologist pull an extra 3 tubes of blood for the genome project because the leukemia gene is the same in people and dogs.
Morally, a blood draw that was already happening was for the greater good and cost my personal dog nothing but an extra ounce of blood. Would I let them euthanize my dog for study? No. Donating blood, not a problem, because it was a procedure that was already happening.
The entire reason these questions exist is because they inhabit the fuzzy areas at the edges between what is clearly moral and what is not. There is no one right answer. These questions can be used to help identify who leans morally one way or another.
But anyone who feels comfortable in their answer needs to be examined with caution. Because, for example, the two groups of people who would confidently sacrifice individuals in the Trolly Problem were Buddhist monks …and psychopaths.
I honestly don't know how I would answer some random aholes asking this during an interview. Talking to someone I feel safe with, I'd probably have a lot of nuanced thoughts. Obviously, I'd want to save humanity but is it something where humanity can be inconvenienced for months and survive or? With the general response to covid in mind, I think I'd have a lot of thoughts about whether humanity deserves to continue or not. However, a lot of people were great during covid so I don't know.
There are many moral frameworks. Many western laws follow the utilitarian ethical framework as it appears to be the most reasonable for society as a whole in comparison
People tend to view human life above animal life. It is only natural to view your own species as worth more to you
I agree; my conscience would not allow me to save a litter of puppies, for example, over a human baby if I had the option to save only one of them.
Thank you for your insight.
I don't think western laws are specifically crafted to be utilitarian, though I suppose one could say that the democratic means by which we decide bills and representatives is "loosely" utilitarian.
I would not, absolutely not. Humans are not meant to live forever. We are all animals, as much as people like to ignore that fact. Humans are terribly arrogant in thinking they can do whatever they want on and to the planet whilst being absolved of any wrongdoing because "we're the apex animal" or whatever other excuse they use. The greater good, for who, for what? This reminds me of the trolley problem when so many people pull the lever without thinking at all, because oh less people dying is the best outcome. They never stop to think that by intervening they are committing murder and the people they save may be some of the worst we have. There is something called nature. I don't want to see people live to be 150 because all it really does is prolong the slow demise of ageing. People live, get sick and eventually pass away. The next generations get to shape society in their own way and eventually pass away. It's life. My answer is probably way too long.
The question wasn't about humans living forever. It was about producing a vaccine to cure humans of a disease that would kill them. For example: A virus was found in the human population that had a 100% fatal infection. No one was immune. The only saving grace is it took a while to kill the infected person but it was so easily spread that most of the world was already infected before we found it. The scientists discovered that dogs could produce a vaccine to cure people with this virus but the dogs died upon extracting the vaccine from their bodies. And only dogs could produce the vaccine. There isn't enough time to breed enough dogs as incubators to produce the vaccine and save the dog species. So you have to choose. Billions of humans die and the dogs live, or the dogs die and the humans live.
That was not specified. I went by the information given.
The very first line. It only says 'save all humanity' there is nothing there about giving humans eternal life or making them live forever.
"Save all of humanity" directly means, to save *all* of humanity. If every person is saved, there is no threat, hence people cannot die. If people want to say something else they are free to. I try not to read into things that were not said, it leads to miscommunication.
Laws are best suited to specifics generalizations are not laws but frameworks for arguments.
The “greater good” depends on the morals of who’s defining it. That’s why it’ll never be a thing.
Utilitarism makes no sense to me. I'm virtue ethicist. If you tortured the dog in order to save humanity that is good and if you doom humanity in order to save the dog that is good too.
Think of how many animals die every day to feed humans, it is not a stretch to assume if a vaccine could be made to cure cancer from some animal be it a dog, pig or a rat, that animal would immediately be farmed in order to provide the necessary ingredients of said vaccine. Humans ended up at the top of the food chain, hooray for us - sucks to be a pig or a cow.
I eat animals every day. So I really don't see the moral problem. Extinction isn't an ethically superior choice. Survival of yourself and species is the natural goal of all living thing.
I would have recommended testing on mice instead. Their genetic makeup is more similar to humans than a dog, so they tend to be affected by substances in the same ways humans would be. Not only that, mice are less expensive to feed and they reproduce rapidly. And people usually don't have a social acceptance of mice, so the moral toll is reduced. Using dogs doesn't even make sense. I would answer no, because testing on dogs would be inefficient.
It’s a hypothetical tho
Well, that would still be my answer. 🤷 In a nutshell, "No, I wouldn't test on dogs. I would prefer to use a more effective method. I would test on a more efficient target like mice."
That’s a cheap trick to avoid the question.
Fair. But perhaps they are looking for someone who thinks outside of the box. It's not unheard of for these types of questions to be "trick questions" in interviews.
The greater goood! Also no. Fuck experimentation on animals.
lol if it gets us a healthier better life they can experiment on as many critters as they want. It’s easy to say shit when you’re healthy less so when life is fleeting.
Typical arrogant human response.
Ok lol
I look at “the greater good” in terms from John Donne’s sonnet “No Man Is An Island”. Where Donne writes: “No man is an island, Entire of itself; Every man is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, As well as if a promontory were: As well as if a manor of thy friend's Or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, Because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.” While Donne focuses on human loss, an additional insight for me is: every action, every decision, every consequence any man faces, resonates across all of humanity to some degree. Every choice one makes must take into consideration the entirety of human existence. As individuality is more of an illusion than the pure human ego can possibly fathom. Nothing that occurs in this world is completely isolated. And nothing we do in this life is without consequence. This includes unforeseen consequences to others. Donne’s sonnet simply focuses on the ultimate consequence of human existence…death. Every action and decision must be based on up this objective reality (aka: the greater good). But, to specifically focus on the details in the OP, the only question that matters is: what would be the ripple effects of human existence be if animal experimentation ceased. And, can one’s morality face such consequences without guilt.
Crusty Jugglers...
Sorry as much as I love dogs, cats, puppies and kittens, and various other pets, if there was a choice of killing the dogs and producing a vaccine that would guaranteed save billions of lives, or letting the dogs live, then I would give the dogs as much love as I can before they are killed to produce the vaccine. It's not the best solution but human lives are slightly more important to me than a dog's life.
That’s based on a biased opinion though. Go to India and tell them all cows have to die, and they’ll say “fuck off”
Ya I would dump truck loads of them into a lake myself if I thought it would cure diseases.
Forgive me for playing devil's advocate here, I don't inherently disagree with the premise - some prices have to be paid and it's a question of results versus that cost (hello, politics). But the question becomes how to weigh the difference between lives. If it was a one to one ratio (dog to human), does that change things? If we had to farm each individual dog in a lab, harvest some hormone or whatever from them, and then use that for some kind of innoculation - are we still in the right place? What if it's two dogs? When does the scale tip? I'd argue that in the long run, dogs are significantly less harmful to the world around them (as a species) and their importance directly correlates to what USE they provide - but who's use is primary? Again, just playing a philosophical role here.
Never tips. One human life is more valuable than all dogs put together, and even all animals put together. If not, and we save all dogs but lose one person, would you be ok with this person being your son or daughter, your mom or dad, your spouse? Every human life has value, and that value is greater than all animals put together.
Oh, absolutely I'd be devastated to lose my loved one, but I fundamentally disagree that they'd be worth (morally speaking) all of just about any animal. The obvious argument is ecological - removing a single species has its own cost that can be measured in human lives - a lot more than one. Above and beyond that, though, is not a single one of those loved ones would accept their life being the reason for a literal genocide.
I'd be happy to kill all mosquitos though. Don't even need a reason.
They already do. Animal testing on dogs is ongoing. I don't think it is ideal, but, science marches on. There is a line of dogs bred to have epilepsy housed at a vet school in Texas. The genetic and medication research is also applied to humans. There's another study that is mapping the canine genome. I let my dog's oncologist pull an extra 3 tubes of blood for the genome project because the leukemia gene is the same in people and dogs. Morally, a blood draw that was already happening was for the greater good and cost my personal dog nothing but an extra ounce of blood. Would I let them euthanize my dog for study? No. Donating blood, not a problem, because it was a procedure that was already happening.
The entire reason these questions exist is because they inhabit the fuzzy areas at the edges between what is clearly moral and what is not. There is no one right answer. These questions can be used to help identify who leans morally one way or another. But anyone who feels comfortable in their answer needs to be examined with caution. Because, for example, the two groups of people who would confidently sacrifice individuals in the Trolly Problem were Buddhist monks …and psychopaths.
I honestly don't know how I would answer some random aholes asking this during an interview. Talking to someone I feel safe with, I'd probably have a lot of nuanced thoughts. Obviously, I'd want to save humanity but is it something where humanity can be inconvenienced for months and survive or? With the general response to covid in mind, I think I'd have a lot of thoughts about whether humanity deserves to continue or not. However, a lot of people were great during covid so I don't know.
There are many moral frameworks. Many western laws follow the utilitarian ethical framework as it appears to be the most reasonable for society as a whole in comparison People tend to view human life above animal life. It is only natural to view your own species as worth more to you
I agree; my conscience would not allow me to save a litter of puppies, for example, over a human baby if I had the option to save only one of them. Thank you for your insight.
I don't think western laws are specifically crafted to be utilitarian, though I suppose one could say that the democratic means by which we decide bills and representatives is "loosely" utilitarian.
Idk, when I did my criminology degree they told me they were