First off, the ethical
considerations in psychological research are implemented for many different
reasons and in my opinion should’ve been introduced sooner than they were so
the experiments like Milgram’s experiment could not have been issued. This experiment caused many issues ethically
due to the fact that the participants were mentally scarred from this
process. Ethics in psychology are
necessary so participants in an experiment have the right to privacy and the
proper knowledge of their safety so they may live to see another day.
The use of
animals in an experiment poses many issues to not only the researcher but also
the animals themselves. Many activists
like the BC group are very against this topic and want to ban the use of
animals in experiments. The only
issue is, if the animals can’t participate then the humans must participate and
no one wants to. Majority of
people would rather a monkey lose a life than themselves, it’s just a survival
aspect. Everyone claims to be an
animal lover but the second they’re given the choice to put themselves in
danger or an animal, they pick the animal. Few people I would think would want to die in the name of
science especially after they asked to participate they didn’t necessarily
volunteer.
Lastly,
the use of torture is never a great positive topic to talk about but it has to
happen sometimes. For example,
when our entire country is in danger because of one man if we don’t find out
the plan then we want to find out everything he knows to survive and not lose
the thriving nation we have today.
Interviews are different in that they are just question and answer
sessions between two or more people. No violence or harm physically may be done during an
interview. There may be some foul
language if the right words aren’t said but otherwise no harm may be done. A method of torture though implements
physical harm and mental harm all to extract information needed to solve an
issue or survive or both. Especially those involved in the examples given like the Geneva Conventions and general military interrogations to extract needed information.
Nick,
ReplyDeleteI can appreciate your insight on animal experimentation as it raised a new perspective in my mind. I believe you are correct that most people, given a choice between animal testing and human testing, would choose to sacrifice animals instead of the themselves. This morbid reality directly serves, as you put it: "survival". Survival is a powerful motivator, and drives many if not all of human actions.
I appreciate your thought of animal testing as a survival technique. When testing on animals, I believe causing harm should not be the action but if it is the reaction, it's ok. Using animals for experiments rather than humans is kind of like a safety net, in the sense that you are testing something with animals for the future use of humans.
ReplyDeleteDear Applenart,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your ideas on ethics and animals. Also, I agree that if an experiment needs to be done, rather the monkey die than me. However, we could use old and dying animals when possible. On the topic of torture, you made an idealistically correct choice, but who determines if torture is necessary. I for one do not trust a government to decide that. A little bit of corruption and an unethical agenda will cause innocent people to be water boarded
Nick, it is interesting that you point out the selfish nature of humans, as we sacrifice animals to save ourselves; however, I completely agree. We all want to save the animals and do the right thing but when we become the ones at risk, we are very quick to retract our offers.
ReplyDeleteLord Applenart,King of the Orchard and the Vineyard,
ReplyDeleteYour opinions on torture are very intriguing. You point out that they can't outright kill the detainees, even thought they'd willingly kill our men in a heartbeat. The scarring the US military does to the detainees is solely to find information to not only protect us, but their fellow soldiers. I must say however, your explanation of how they go about it made me chuckle. It sounded like a bad trip to the Vice Principal's office. If you'd care for a different opinion of the torture scene, look at Anna's blog. She has valid points and delivers an interesting discussion about the potential immorality of torture.
Is it fair to the detainees that they are treated like well knowing cattle? Do our rights of man stop where our constitution loses her jurisdiction? Although we powder our nose towards the People's Republic of China and the Russian Republic about our human rights status, is it fair to treat those we detain in war prisons differently from those in a regular prison? We never did any sort of water boarding to Anthony Sowell to find out if he had any more victims. Perhaps we should wake up and stop using the medieval practices of the bloody mummers like our founding fathers wanted us to get away from. But hey, that's why we're a republic. Society decides.
Sincerely,
Khal Dobeck of the Dothraki Horse Lords
Nick,
ReplyDeleteWhen you mentioned interrogation techniques it reminded me of this documentary I watched on serial killers. I would like to point out that, at times, a threatening/ alpha-male approach doesn't always suit the perpetrator. In contrast to ordinary thought, many criminals confess under the nurturing presence of a woman, this is especially true in the case of serial killers ( many of whom are obsessed with women and desperately crave their attention). My mother, in her days as a criminal investigator for the NCIS ( or in her day NIS) faced this situation on a regular basis, so this makes me wonder : what makes one more psychologically susceptible to a method of divulgence ?
Nick,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your view on animal testing and how you said we would all rather an animal dying than our self. But taking animals from their natural environment to test on them for human advances is cruel in my eyes. If animals are going to be used in an experiment simply breed them instead.