Dissection of animals for non-medical students

[scotpens]

Have you ever seen a hyena eat a water buffalo alive? I think there's very solid ground for calling that an "evil" (albeit with handy scare quotes in order to distinguish it from the more conscious evils humans inflict on each other and other living creatures). My point is, if we accept any notion of animal rights, and ascribe moral value to those rights, it's uncomfortable to accept that animals are incapable of violating each others' rights and there is no moral value in them performing actions we'd consider absolutely abhorrent if a human were to do them.

Which is precisely what makes the whole notion of “animal rights” problematical. Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. If an animal lacks the congitive capabililty to be held responsible for its actions, how can it be presumed to have “rights”?

I've actually given some thought to the prospect that, at some point of economic and technological development, humans may even actively seek to prevent or ameliorate natural predation amongst wild animals. I think it's a neat science fiction idea, anyway.

And science fiction is all that it’ll ever be. Aside from the potential for ecological disaster in messing with nature on such a fundamental level, the question is WHY? What would be the point?

 

[Myasishchev]

Which is precisely what makes the whole notion of “animal rights” problematical. Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. If an animal lacks the congitive capablilty to be held responsible for its actions, how can it be presumed to have “rights”?

Rights can exist independently of responsibilities. Responsibilities are principally only the shadow cast by a right--I only have a duty not to negligently kill anybody because people have a right to live, I only have a duty not to defame someone with my speech because people have a right to their reputation, etc.

It's not a chicken and the egg thing (though they do say a right without a remedy isn't much of a right, and this isn't lost on me).

Outside of Texas, a profoundly mentally disabled person may well be exempt from criminal responsibility, but still has his own rights, and will be prevented from violating others.

And science fiction is all that it’ll ever be. Aside from the potential for ecological disaster in messing with nature on such a fundamental level, the question is WHY? What would be the point?

I dunno, you ever seen a managed cat colony?

Besides, humans are going to change the environment regardless of how we approach it. We're too big, too numerous, and too good at it. Any life would do the same, and all life has the prospect of ecological disaster, simply because of its nature; something I never got about all those "gray goo" stories is that they seem pretty alarmist considering they were all written by giant colonies of molecular assembly machines.

As for why, the same reason you might take in a stray kitten. I doubt you would derive much economic benefit from it, but extending kindness is often considered an end in itself.

 

[DBR]

Being a product of Alberta's budget cuts in the 90's, I never dissected anything.

 

[smiki]

Which is precisely what makes the whole notion of “animal rights” problematical. Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. If an animal lacks the congitive capablilty to be held responsible for its actions, how can it be presumed to have “rights”?

So what you're essentially saying is that human babies don't have rights? Think about it.

And science fiction is all that it’ll ever be. Aside from the potential for ecological disaster in messing with nature on such a fundamental level, the question is WHY? What would be the point?

I dunno, you ever seen a managed cat colony?

Besides, humans are going to change the environment regardless of how we approach it. We're too big, too numerous, and too good at it. Any life would do the same, and all life has the prospect of ecological disaster, simply because of its nature; something I never got about all those "gray goo" stories is that they seem pretty alarmist considering they were all written by giant colonies of molecular assembly machines.

As for why, the same reason you might take in a stray kitten. I doubt you would derive much economic benefit from it, but extending kindness is often considered an end in itself.

I understand this may be attempted as a way of eliminating pain in all its shapes from the universe (a noble cause in itself no doubt), but aside from the fact you'd be breaking the "prime directive" and all that, how would it be achieved?

The only ways I see it happening is either by essentially turning the whole wild beautiful nature into a big zoo, where you'd feed the carnivorous species with meat grown on trees (which in itself is likely to happen in the future), by turning the carnivorous species into herbivores, or by simply destroying the carnivorous species (which would kinda defeat the purpose wouldn't it ).

None of the ways seems like a good way to me... aside from the fact it would mess up the delicate ecological balance (herbivores would spread across the planet like the plaque, I tell ya' , without predators ), I see it as bad for the future prospect of all those species (herbivores have a smaller chance of eventually developing into sentient beings, for numerous reasons), and if you fed them all the time, animals would turn into fat lazy pets, and I don't see stagnation for them, which would be a product of that, the choice made BY US HUMANS, as a good thing. And this is were their (collective) rights come into play. Do we have the right do decide their future for them? To choose pleasant, without pain, probable stagnation, but still stagnation, or let them feel pain but not deprive them of their future potentials? Then again, that's what we did with domesticated animals, huh? And who seems happier to you, the wild ones living in the wild, or the ones in farms and such?

All in all, a good sf idea to ponder about.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Babies certainly don't have personal freedom. Or the right to not be force-fed either. Or the right to refuse certain painful medical interventions.

I think that makes them a nice comparison point actually.

 

[smiki]

^True, but I certainly wouldn't agree that animals don't have the right of personal freedom (or babies for that matter, the only reason this doesn't come into play is because you can't use babies as slaves ... but a baby mind in an adult body, such as someone mentally challenged, has a right of personal freedom).

In my opinion, animals have a right not to be held captive against their "will" (or lets better call it their desires; the reason they might not have "will" is because they can't reason, well, some of them, but they certainly can feel... as well as babies). If an animal is held happy in a zoo, then it's okay, because it then doesn't desire not to be held there, it has all it wants, things it naturally has haven't been taken away from it. But if the zoo isn't of that wide open variety, such as many are, than that's another matter.

 

[Lindley]

I might vaguely recall poking at dead frogs in biology class once. If I had actually cut one open I think I'd remember that, but I don't.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I dissected a fetal pig, a frog, a fish, and a worm. The first two bothered me slightly. In retrospect, the pig makes a lot of sense, since they're relatively similar to humans anatomically. As long as they're killed humanely, I don't see the big deal. I think dissection is a good way to get some general knowledge and it'll help you figure out if this is something you want to do in the future, so high school makes a good deal of sense (I certainly didn't take any biology classes in college, so this was my only opportunity). I think alternatives need to be available for those who really don't want to do it (since it can be a bit disturbing/disgusting), but having it as part of a curriculum seems to be a good idea overall.