Cons

• Cons 2 Oct 2011 9:42 UTC

  9 points

  in reply to: Emile’s comment on: Don’t ban chimp testing

  Regarding what MinibearRex pointed out, I think some humans, because of their cognitive abilities, are more capable of making the universe a better place than either chimpanzees or other humans are. Many humans lack those cognitive capacities, others will use them in ways that will do more harm than good.

  But an important question here is: What makes the universe a better place? In my view, to put it briefly, the universe becomes a better place if there is less suffering of sentient beings in it, and, additionally, more enjoyment of sentient beings in it.

  So, given this, Emile, I have reasons to reject arbitrariness. I care for sentient beings. That’s not an arbitrary criterion, since they are the ones who can suffer and enjoy.

  This is the key issue, in my view, underlying this debate. I have presented some reasons to reject the idea that promoting chimp testing will make the world a better place. The arguments I’ve been presented have opposed my view by implicitly or explicitly pointing out that what makes the world a better place is what makes it a better place for humans. But in my view, if in a universe A there is more suffering and less enjoyment of sentient beings than in universe B, A is worse than B. It is so even if some of those beings are better in A than in B. I don’t need to know who are those beings. They may be humans or cats, it doesn’t matter for me, I’d still consider A to be worse than B.

• Cons 1 Oct 2011 22:25 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: PhilGoetz’s comment on: Don’t ban chimp testing

  The replies to the arguments opposing chimp testing haven’t tried to show why the defense of such testing is right from a nonspeciesist viewpoint. Rather, they’ve assumed that viewpoint.

  Explaining all the arguments against the idea that speciesism is wrong would require lots of space. So I’ll just say here that if we are concerned with wellbeing it is arbitrary to take into account only some of them simply because they are possessed by certain individuals, rather than other ones. Of course many people are arbitrary, and found their moral views on such arbitrariness. But that isn’t really the approach that someone who’s aiming at getting rid of bias should accept.

  The main argument that has been provided here in favour for this arbitrariness seems to be: “Don’t you eat animals too?”

  I don’t eat animals, and I certainly agree that promoting vegetarianism is a crucial way to question speciesism. But asking whether one is vegetarian or not is not a reply to the problem we’re dealing here. I’ve met people who just didn’t have the willpower to change their food habits even though they agreed speciesism is wrong. I think it’s obvious that those who oppose speciesism should encourage those people to do things that reduce the impact speciesism has (such as writing a letter to Scientific American).

  There are many people who do things I don’t consider right, that’s not a reason for me to say they aren’t entitled to do good things because that would contradict their previous wrong doing.

• Cons 1 Oct 2011 19:42 UTC

  6 points

  on: Don’t ban chimp testing

  Hello! I usually read LessWrong posts, however, I’d never felt the need to create an account because I thought I needed to make some comment. However, when I read this one, I saw that, after so much time visiting LW without creating an account, I needed to create one to comment on it.

  We have a strong bias in favor of human interests. But when we try to get rid of them we can see things in a different light. The magnitude of the harm humans cause to other animals really is significant and overwhelmingly bigger than the benefits humans obtain from it. It’s very likely that in the future we will increase this gap between the magnitude of the harms we inflict on animals and the significantly smaller benefits we obtain. Therefore, debunking speciesism is a very important task we need to engage in if we want a future with more wellbeing and less suffering.

  Experimenting only on nonhuman animals reflects the idea that human interests are more important simply because they are humans. This is a view we must oppose. And banning chimp testing actually questions this idea. For this reason, we should welcome very much such a ban. Campaining against may have terrible effects. The gains that might be acquired by harming chimps would be greatly outweighed by the significantly negative effect that the promotion of a speciesist viewpoint has. All this, of course, setting aside considerations regarding whether all the harm entailed by chimp testing is really going to prove so beneficial.

  Given all this, my recommendation is that those who read this write to Scientific American to show their support of the ban on chimp testing.