2007-11-01 08:29:22 · 9 answers · asked by Mayonaise 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Well it depends, act utilitarianism states that anything can be right as long as it leads to the greater happiness.
So basically, if the suffering of those who are ill outweights that of the animals, its right, if it doesn't its wrong.
But how can you tell if the animals suffer more than us?
2007-11-01 09:12:24 · answer #1 · answered by azuradragonfly 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Those based entirely on necessity (No makeup, no shampoo, no product......)
Those where the animal is suitably sedated/pain-free. (Absolute minimal suffering)
Where the unknown side effects have an unacceptably high mortality probability. (Too many dead humans, too much paperwork, no chance of getting the family to consent to an extensive autopsy/vivisection)
PROVIDED that it can be shown that the testing will definitely lead to further breakthroughs, and that this is the only way in which those breakthroughs can be made.
Basically, only if completely, absolutely, and beyond all shadow of a doubt necessary in order to save further lives, and if it can be done with the absolute minimum of suffering, provided human test subjects have been justifiably ruled out.
2007-11-01 16:03:21 · answer #2 · answered by Rafael 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think any legitimate need justifies our hurting animals. I mean we eat them. That's about as cruel as it gets. I think frivolous pain infliction is not justified by any legitimate medical or other need seems to justify it. There really are no rules about what is "fair" in nature, but you can sure observe a lot of things killing other things for food or even to steal their young or lay eggs in their dead bodies. Nature is gruesome - as bad as we are, we're still by far the most considerate species around.
2007-11-01 15:59:34 · answer #3 · answered by All hat 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It is wrong for the animals and good for humanity. If you think about it the animals are only here for us to use as we see fit. As soon as they have outlived their usefulness we stop breading them. Guess you could say the same for humans… scary.
2007-11-01 16:20:09 · answer #4 · answered by grey_worms 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Digestibility
2007-11-01 15:36:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
as long as they could find a homeless guy to sign a contract and make a couple 100 bucks, unjustifiable.
2007-11-01 15:46:09 · answer #6 · answered by anoddmind 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Any thing to help humans. Makeup isn't necessary.
2007-11-01 15:43:30 · answer #7 · answered by The Voice of Reason 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Anything on cats, nothing on dogs.
2007-11-01 15:36:59 · answer #8 · answered by Beatle fanatic 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
IQ
2007-11-01 17:54:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋