I’ve been reading some utilitarian bioethicists who argue against the use of animals in medical research. The argument seems to be that what counts most is one’s cognitive ability, not one’s species. Thus, the life of a healthy chimp is more valuable than that of an anencephalic child. Thus, one would be more moral to conduct medical experiments on such a child than upon a normal chimp. Since we’re *not* performing gruesome experiments on such children, then there are no circumstances under which it could be moral to use chimps (or other primates) in medical research.
I thought to myself: what if this train ran both ways?
Consider the military and its use of human subjects. Clearly, we *are* willing to make soldiers of young, healthy men and women. This isn’t a medical experiment, of course, but it is a case of putting a primate in harm’s way for the larger good of society. In a utilitarian sense, these are exceptionally valuable primates because they are young and healthy with many options open to them, such as higher education, raising a family, citizenship, and voluntary service to the community. (Not to mention, only human primates can effectively work for the advancement of animal rights!)
So it seems to me that the lives of human soldiers should be worth much more—in a strictly utilitarian sense—than those of any other healthy primate.
So why don’t we, say, suit up chimps, put ‘em in cars loaded with bombs and propel them into terrorist enclaves?
Or have apes in uniform patrol dangerous areas drawing sniper fire that might otherwise strike a human primate with a higher IQ whose death would cause more pain to more other beings than that of any primates? (Nonhuman primates live in smaller communities than do humans; it’s a rare primate whose death would grieve over fifty people, while most humans in their late teens and early twenties would be missed by many more people if they fell during battle.)
LISTEN: I am *not* advocating this. I’m wondering why utilitarian ethicists are *not* advocating this.
Why don’t we enlist other primates in the military? Isn’t it “speciesist” to make cannon fodder only of human primates?
-
Re: Suicide Bomber Chimps?
Thu, July 12, 2007 - 9:18 AM>LISTEN: I am *not* advocating this. I’m wondering why utilitarian ethicists are *not* advocating this.
Oh...I'm listening alright...
Define "utilitarian ethicist" first. Of course, someone may well respond to your post before you do define what that is and there will most likely be confusion as a result. Not the confusion of a kind that is good or bad per se. Just confusion. So, if the members of this tribe will wait for some statement by the original poster of what an "utilitarian ethicist" is I personally would be greatly appreciative. -
-
Re: Suicide Bomber Chimps?
Tue, January 1, 2008 - 8:09 AMPlease remain confused.
The subject of animals as military `` tools´´ has been tested and performed in all sort of ways.
firstly we have the Russians in the worldwar. They trained dogs to run in under tanks and then blow them up with explosives attatched to the back of the dog. The dog was taught to pull a string, thus beeing fed.
The US navy has various kinds of dolphins. These can perform al lsorts of tasks. Spionage, suicide bombings on boats.. but also to attack enemy divers! They do this with the help of a injection needle attatched to it,s nose. It,s also said tha dolphins vere used in the vietnam war.
As for monkeys i do know that the Marrocan army offered to send trained mine clearer monkeys to the Iraq war, tought their offer was rejected.
-
-
Re: Suicide Bomber Chimps?
Wed, January 2, 2008 - 1:54 PMWell, at least I can safely say that other than asking me to remain confused, you have kept your opinion to yourself. Recounting instances of barbarity and cruelty is not an opinion per se, simply gratuitous information.
-
-
Re: Suicide Bomber Chimps?
Wed, January 2, 2008 - 8:59 AM>>>>>Define "utilitarian ethicist" first.<<<<<<
An ethicist working from a utilitarian perspective. Peter Singer is one, though he would oppose the use of suicide bomber chimps because of his view of animal rights. -
-
Re: Suicide Bomber Chimps?
Wed, January 2, 2008 - 1:55 PMThank you. I hesitate to take this conversation further because we don't seem to be getting anywhere quickly. However, since you won't specifically define what "utilitarian ethicist" is, let me take a crack at it for you. You are equating "utilitarian ethics" with "amoralist ethics", correct? Or...? -
-
Re: Suicide Bomber Chimps?
Tue, January 8, 2008 - 8:02 AM>>>>>>>>You are equating "utilitarian ethics" with "amoralist ethics", correct?<<<<<<
Utilitarianism is a well-known branch of ethcial theory. I'm surprised to learn that it's new to you.
Utilitarians generally hold that suffering is the worst thing in the world and that what makes something good is that it reduces the amount of suffering in the world. (This oversimplifies somewhat, but the heart of utilitarianism involves a calculation based on suffering.)
One *could* argue that the deaths of suicide bomber chimps would carry less suffering-weight than that of a human. (Humans live in larger communities, so the death of a human is mourned by more people than is the death of a chimp would be.)
I have a problem with utilitarianism. (In short, it's wrong.) However, it's among the most persuasive ethical theories afoot today. Many institutions--such as hospitals--mean by "ethicists" "utilitarian ethicists." -
-
Re: ethical confusions
Wed, January 9, 2008 - 2:38 AMWhat is the difference between "utilitarian individualist" and "utilitarian ethicist"? Or is a "utilitarian individualist" someone who simply seeks to minimize the amount of pain in the world?
-
Re: Suicide Bomber Chimps?
Wed, January 9, 2008 - 3:00 AM>I'm surprised to learn that it's new to you.
Would you be surprised if the majority of people in this tribe didn't know what it is? Seriously, who did you want to discuss this with per se?
In any case, it is an interesting issue of moralism, that is, what constitutes good or right behavior. In most cases, what is right or good has a superficial or relative value, in my opinion. I do not rule out there being some absolute ethics, simply because I don't profess to know one way or the other whether or not there is some absolute system of moral derivations that makes sense in all contexts. However, rather than deriving your's laboriously (eg socratically), what is it? Or are you simply wondering something about a branch of ethical theory, ie utilitarianism? In either case, I frequently wonder if some of us just don't have an abiliity to get to the point.
Is your point that there is no absolute right or wrong? That society often overlooks ethics in one area to accomplish goals that satisfy some other moral imperative in another...or what we hope is a moral imperative? -
-
Re: Suicide Bomber Chimps?
Wed, January 9, 2008 - 8:28 PM
The USAAF experimented with "bat bombs" during WW2. The idea was that hundreds of bats with incindiaries attached would be released by low-flying aircraft and would fly up under the eves of Japanese houses, then explode and set them on fire. And as recently as 2003 there was a story of a mule being loaded up with explosives and remotely detonated killing a bunch of people in Afganistan. However neither bats, mules nor chimps really have any idea what is going on so the use of the word "suicide" is somewhat of a misnomer. -
-
Re: Suicide Bomber Chimps?
Sat, January 19, 2008 - 9:47 AM** Beats Josh to bloody shit with a book**
Bat bombs? Damn that is deffinately creative.
-
-
-
-
-
-