Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CDSmith
I realize that. My point is that, while in the course of doing the necessary experiments, the animals can still be handled and treated in a humane manner. Cruelty doesn't have to enter into it.
|
I guess it depends on ones definition of cruelty then. Your definition of "cruelty" seems to be deliberate, unnecessary infliction of suffering. For many (e.g. PETA types), though, the term "cruelty" also covers the suffering that is necessary for the experiments.
Your definition is the better one, in my opinion, but unfortunately, cruelty is an extremely loaded and controversial term, and the definition will probably remain disputed in this context as long as there are both people carrying out animal tests as well as people protesting against them.
Also, one has to wonder what the line between humane and cruel treatment is. Speaking purely in terms of cost, it seems possible that for some experiments, spending significantly more on the welfare of the animals involved would greatly increase their well-being. But how far should this be taken? Imagine a linear correlation between "animal well-being budget" and "animal well-being". Should one, then, spend a dollar on a lab-rat, a hundred dollars, a thousand, a million?
Of course, there is no such linearity. Still, it is an interesting question - how much effort and money spent on the well-being of animals constitutes humane treatment?
I guess that at one point, an arbitrary decision has to be made, accepting that there is no objective standard. The downside of this, though, is that protesters will never be convinced that enough is being done for the well-being of the animals involved, and they will continue to threaten researchers and terrorize animal testing labs.