104 replies to this topic

[Juni Ori]

Negative. They can be valued and even be sort of "family members", but never reach human value, thus never be full members of society. Thinking further it, it's not quite black and white, but very complex and more like questioning where to draw the line.

[taikara]

I think Juni's original phrasing was "criminals sentenced to death" - usually, to be sentenced to death in any society, you have to do something that the majority of the society, regardless of class, ethnic background, or status seriously objects to. Not even all murderers end up on Death Row, and I'd consider murder bad enough to lower your human value, regardless of the reasons for murdering. There are ways to solve problems without killing someone. Sure, some are possible to rehabilitate, but if someone's been sentenced to death, they've likely murdered a lot of people for no real reason. Or something equally heinous.

Personally, I wouldn't object to using Death Row criminals for human medical testing. I mean, they're going to die anyway, and debating the ethics of who decides who has lesser human value isn't really going to change that fact. They may as well spend their last years helping the society they harmed.

And regarding retarded people - my aunt was retarded (she died a few years ago), and I've done a lot of work volunteering with retarded children and mentally disabled adults (retardation, dementia, alzheimers, etc). IMHO, retarded people tend to act more humane than most humans. They're like perpetual children who live in constant innocence of good and evil.

My aunt, retarded though she was, was the only member of my dad's side of the family who never judged me for not being what they wanted me to be (an ultra-Christian cheerleader socialite type). Furthermore, unlike the rest of that side of the family, she actually paid attention to what my interests were, and what kind of person I was. While the rest of my family would give me Christian self help books, she would give me sewing kits (I was in a medieval recreationist club, and made my own costumes) and computer books.

People with mental disabilities may not be smart, but they aren't bad, either.

[Tulac]

But I meant those really retarded people (idiots) that have no cognitive abilities and no intelligence, they from an utilitaristic point of view have no "value" just like a dog for someone has no "value", and so if we can test it on dogs shouldn't we test it on humans too since they have no "value"...
I mean that's the logic, we can harm the animals because they're not human eg. they aren't conscius...
Otherwise you can say it's sentimental value, but that's why I who don't think that animals should be harmed also think that they have their sentimental value and emotions...

[taikara]

How many retarded people (idiots ) have you actually known?

There are different levels of retardation. It's actually referred to as being developmentally disabled for a reason. Retarded people do have intelligence, do have cognitive abilities, can learn, and do have consciousness, they just can't mentally progress fully to an adult level of intelligence. As I implied, but didn't outright state, being developmentally/mentally disabled/retarded/etc. is much like possessing the logic and reasoning skills of a child.

Unless you're saying children aren't "human."

[Tom Henrik]

There is actually one more good thing about using death row prisoners as test subject, that I have never thought about before.

It actually gives the criminal a second chance.


Let's say that a person has been sentenced to Death Row for a brutal series of murders he never commited. Naturally, he would be terminated fairly quickly - and would never be able to clean his name.

But by being used as a human test subject, he would be alive - and might be found innocent - at which time he would be set free, and would be given compensation and restitution from the government.

Sure, he might not have any hair at the moment, but he would be alive and could start his life new. Whereas in the first scenario he would be dead. And his family would just get a letter in the mail saying "Sorry. We messed up."

[Tulac]

taikara, on Jun 5 2006, 10:55 PM, said:

How many retarded people (idiots ) have you actually known?

Look I was not speaking about every mentally ill person, and yes I know a person that has Down Syndrome...
I used the term idiot to describe a person I just did in my upper post, those are people with below 20 IQ (so that counts out 90% or so of mentally ill people), now these people are strapped to their chairs because they can't control their muscles (they are unfortunately so deformed, so they really don't have cognitive abilities), they can learn and communicate with the very basic "commands" (I know I sound rude but I don't know how to call it), but not much more than let's say an ape. Yet apes are being tested on and they are not being tested on, now these people are very rare I don't think you see them in the mentally ill centers since they are the most extreme cases of retardation...

EDIT: And to be honest I don't feel sorry for mentally ill people, I think they're happier and have better quality lives than most of us...

[Tom Henrik]

Well, from a purely scientific point of view (and not taking humanitarian consideration at all) - retarded people would not be fit as test subjects for most medical studies.

Their genetical build-up is different from the average Joe. Be it chromosones, muscle development, brain development, anatomical development, and so on.

You need someone who is healthy to begin with, in order to track progress and failures.


Edit:
Uhm, so as these retarded people have been blessed by having a better life than the rest of us - they should suffer for our sake?

[taikara]

An ape born with a genetic disorder is still an ape. A human born with a genetic disorder is still a human. A human born with Down's Syndrome is still not an ape, and never will be.

I don't think anyone ever said that criminals (the original point that led to the retardation argument) weren't human. They're saying that they have lost human value, i.e. are not humane.

If a person with Down's Syndrome goes on a mass-murdering spree and gets sentenced to the death penalty, neither would I consider him humane, and I would totally agree that he should probably be put in some medical testing program. Short of that, you still can't turn an apple into an orange by pretending it's an orange.

[Tulac]

Just to get one thing clear idiots are not same as people with Down's Syndrome, I have clearly made the distinction, there are classifications of mentally ill people (by IQ) and idiots is one of them there are also morons, imbeciles and others(these are older classifications but they are now classifies differently but you ought to ask a doctor about that)...
The idiots are those that can't move and have the same level of intelligence as an ape (if not lower) so if I haven't been clear enough I hope I am now...
Now I was more thinking along the lines of this: "Hey they are animals (apes), they have no intelligence(yes I know he has intelligence, but none by our "human" standards)  and they are not conscius, they have genetic structure is much like ours, let's use them for testing..."
Now someone could also say "Hey he is an idiot he has no cognitive abilites and no intelligence (or the same as ape if you wish), let's use him for testing..."
Explain me the difference between those two...

Quote

Uhm, so as these retarded people have been blessed by having a better life than the rest of us - they should suffer for our sake?

No I just wanted to make clear I don't regard retarded people as lowere level citizens or whatever I'm just using them as an analogy...

But then again if an ape is an ape what gives us the right to sacrifice him so we can make our selfish lives better?

And also I think that a retarded person has much more common genes with humans than any ape or dog...

[taikara]

And let me just make one thing clear myself - I was using Down's as an example, not a rule.

You still cannot turn a human being into an ape, no matter how "unintelligent" he or she might be, just like a "smart" ape will never be a human.

[Tulac]

Well that's the point, if let's say we would create an ape with an intelligence of a human, would you still consider him an animal and do tests on him, just because he isn't of our race, the same goes vice versa...

[Tom Henrik]

That was the point of Tai, Tulac.

You're painting an apple orange, and calling it an orange. It's a coloured apple.

Just like a human with the IQ of an ape is a human with a low IQ, and an ape with the IQ of a human is an ape with a high IQ.

[Tulac]

So you squish the apple just because it's an apple and leave the orange just because it's an orange, even though that the reason that you squished the apple is that it's red...
Meaning that an orange painted apple from my perspective doesn't deserver to be squished...
Anyways this has gone too far

[taikara]

That's ridiculously hypothetical. The minute an animal evolves (or is created - though I believe that's fairly unethical - not to mention unwise in and of itself) that has the same abilities and intelligence as a human, I do believe there would be an entire rethinking of the way we deal with that species of creatures.

Actually, according to human history, what would most likely happen is that those creatures would be used as slaves (as it's highly unlikely they'd be quite as intelligent as humans, unless engineered to be so), then would revolt and win their own rights (though that's rather cynical).

However, if one species somehow developed human characteristics, does that mean that somehow, that species' human characteristics apply to all animals? All animals have intelligence to some degree - it still doesn't make them human, or even human-like. It's silly to assume that intelligence the only thing that makes us human. Intelligence doesn't even make us humane.

[Juni Ori]

Okay, as Tulac said it:

Quote

And also I think that a retarded person has much more common genes with humans than any ape or dog...

I have to add that most of animal testing isn't even done with our very distant relatives, apes. So yes, Tom, your point isn't valid. Retarded would be - if humanity put aside - excellent test subjects. I have to admit I was close to make the same mistake.

Small sidenote: I've noticed something very interesting: though there has been more than just couple taking part into this debate, it has kept to intelligent and off the flaming / trolling. Thank you.

But back to the point: I was speaking of criminals sentenced to death, yes, but they were only examples. Right behind them I'd put pedophiles, rapists, treasonists, people guilty to crimes against humanity, etc, just to list some of the worst and in my eyes most potential for test subjects. The exact line drawing is of course difficult, but I believe it could be determined.

And I believe here is excellent point to mention, that there wouldn't be enough such people to cover the whole test program. Thus we'd still need lesser life forms, such as apes, dogs, mice, etc. for the early study. Those having very high pulse at the moment, thinking I'm cold blooded bastard: keep in mind, that those human test subjects - though without a choise - would actually have rather small chances to really suffer from testing. Of course some side effects could be unpleasant, but hey, they chose to do what they did.

And I find it hard to believe that human would ever let another (too) intelligent being to live next to him. Perhaps a slave species (actually there are huge number of slave species used already - horses, cattle, sheeps, etc.) could be possible, but under strict control. And as far as they wouldn't get too intelligent, I don't believe they could overthrow human rule.