I think the ethical boundaries enforced within psychological experiments is a great thing to help maintain the the upmost safety throughout the duration of experiments. There are numerous liabilities and errors that accompany experimentation and without doing things, such as informing a person on the possible consequences for his/her participation, companies would face all sorts of law suits. Therefore, the ethical stipulations play a vital role in maintaining peace among the participants. Also, it would be ethically wrong to allow a person to die for the sole purpose of scientific research, hence the limitations draw that fine line for the researchers. It also benefits psychologists in the sense that these stipulations stand the same for all practices and companies, thus keeping an even playing field among companies and their capabilities.
However, one thing I do not agree with is the wide range of differences from the human ethical guidelines and the animal ones. I do support animal experimentation to an extent in the sense that it is better to test animals than humans, due to their lack of emotional intel compared to ours. Although, I think we are all familiar with that sorrowful puppy whimper or animal cry, thus depicting their pain and contradicting my aforementioned support for animal testing. I think harming animals is wrong and experiments that do so should be looked at in a more serious sense. There has to exist alternative tests for medicines and such that do not involve injury to living creatures, but that has yet to be determined. While I understand the importance of animal testing, I would prefer more guidelines as to what can and cannot be done to animals.
As for the intentional torturing of humans, I feel that my opinion of this goes hand in hand with my opinion of animal testing. In other words, I do not support it, but i also do not condemn it because I realize the importance of such a thing. Torturing often deals with our country and its safety, in which case I cannot criticize such tactics. However, harming someone for information can lead to death, hence not even achieving the goal of receiving information. In this case, a human's life was taken and nothing was gained. I think torture should always be a last case scenario and authorities should attempt to refrain from such barbaric actions when possible. Though I do not agree with many of the harmful techniques, I do realize that often times there is no other option.
In the topics of animal experimentation and torturing humans, it is hard for everyone to pick a side. All the pros tend to lean to your favor, whereas the cons are in the subjects favor. The final opinion will have to be whether or not one has a problem with causing physical or mental pain to another animal, human or not.
ReplyDeleteCaroline,
ReplyDeleteJulia raises a very valid point. Activities like torture depend on finding a person willing to commit such an action. Personally, I do not think I could do such a thing. However, like you, I cannot ignore that in some very extreme cases, torture is necessary. I wish it was not so, but there when there is no other viable option, I have no choice but to acknowledge torture as a valid way of getting information.
Caroline,
ReplyDeleteI understand the difficulty in choosing a side on such a gruesome topic. Yet in a cruel world of torturing animals and humans, I feel a fine line exists between “safe” experimentation and torture. In the name of science, this necessary evil evolves the psychological field of intelligence. Without torture and test subjects, who knows what information and techniques we could be missing out on?
Caroline, I agree with your opinion towards the large margin between human and animal rights. Humans are animals and I think we have strayed so far from that concept that no one understands that animals should be treated maybe not the same but more similarly to the humans than they are treated now. Also, your opinion towards torturing for humans i agree with as well that yes it isn't exactly all positive and happy but it has to happen to keep the safety of our country.
ReplyDeleteDear Caroline,
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that Science would increase in the short term if all experiments were allowed. However, what good is there in advancing an unmoral society. Also, in the long run I would hypothesize that unethical science would lead to a halt in science. I applaud you for the way you walked the line in your points.
Caroline,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your view on how there should be a smaller difference between human and animal ethics because we are both part of the animal category. Animals should be treated almost the same way we are when it comes to psychological experiments, with some exceptions. However, I disagree with you that torture should be allowed in any sense. Harming someone until their death is not right because there was no positive outcome, only a negative outcome. A person's life was lost in an awful way. I do not believe that torture is ever a good method of interrogation.
Dear Caroline,
ReplyDeleteYour blog is the first one I've read which made me feel the real plight of animals being tested. The little whimper they give is excruciatingly painful to think about. Hearing that whimper would be like playing the Sarah McLaughlin game. (Watch the commercials without feeling bad for the animals.)Your blog has put me into a new perspective, and perhaps we need to redefine what classifies as proper animal experimentation.
Caroline,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100% on interrogation. Honestly, if it is to ensure our safety as a country, then do whatever possible to get that information. Although torture on humans should only be to a certain point. Death should NEVER be an outcome.