Hacker News Reader

Comment by TaylorAlexander | Hacker News Reader

It feels perfectly consistent to say that we ultimately need to end animal testing but it is okay to use animal products for your literal survival in the meantime. Perhaps they don’t have such a position. But it feels pretty wrong headed to me to mock PETA because a diabetic uses insulin rather than take heed to their very real and very important message about the abuse of animals in our society. It feels like you’re purposefully redirecting the conversation away from yourself because you do not want to discuss animal abuse.

View on HN

That's not what PETA says, though. They say, animal testing is NEVER EVER EVER OK. Ever.

They have further stated that using animal tested products is 100% morally wrong. Except, of course, for Special People which are 'in the fight'.

This is far different from saying "We need to work to end animal testing".

> It feels perfectly consistent to say that we ultimately need to end animal testing but it is okay to use animal products for your literal survival in the meantime.

Out of purely academic interest, how are you not bothered by the clear contradictions in that logic?

I genuinely don’t see a contradiction? Let’s work hard to eliminate animal testing, even if that means developing new technology to solve the problems we’re currently trying to solve with animal testing. In the meantime this position would advocate to rapidly end all non-survival related animal products like cheeseburgers, while allowing some nuance for life saving medicine. Seems perfectly reasonable?

There's a difference between,

> we ultimately need to end animal testing

and,

> work hard to eliminate animal testing

One is known as a universal; animal testing shouldn't be done regardless of the consequence. The other is a much weaker standpoint. You've taken the extreme condition of "cheeseburger" where most people would say there doesn't exist anyone who can't reasonably switch to a non-animal product - but what about cosmetic products which people use to help their self-confidence (acne treatments and what not), can those be tested on animals?

By what metric do you choose what's necessary and what's not in the meantime? Your own example of leather boots isn't directly survival related i.e. you don't die if you don't have them.

The final problem is that it's not an unreasonable hypothesis that there will be products which will always be needed to be tested on animals (such as medicines) - is it morally correct in your worldview that we continue to pursue such products?

I don't see the contradiction, it is similar to say "we ultimately need to stop burning fossil fuels" while using Internet and living in a city.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com