Could nonhuman pain ever equal a norm
Can Animal Friends critique Animal Objectification taking place in the medical field but also put forth the basic fundamental wrong in medical history overall?
Who suggests that the reason that Animal Experimentation is taking and has been taking place is because of an interest in human benefits? What kind of benefit comes from violating someone else’s life?
To assume there was a basic “speciesist logic” is one path some Animal Advocates are going for a lack of distance to their histories of knowledge and their overall hegemonial even if well-meant perspectives.
The fault in Animal Experimentation is one from the onset on, even as benefits for people have been drawn out of them. The same setting in this particular aspect as with involuntary experimentation on human victims.
If a science in its history is based on the fundamental ethical disparagement of animality – as in the case of Nonhumans being handled as objects of physical and mental and any direct or indirect bodily research – how can scientists not be willing to admit the basic fault in their approach but now argue as if they unavoidably tried to right a wrong? This does not seem to go far enough.
If researchers are looking for a way out of their erroneous scientific system, don’t hold the idea of medicine a scapegoat for understanding that the path is wrong now when the initial wrongness is the same as in the entire history of human benefit. No, science is not free from fundamental dilemmas and wrongs, as is no space that humanity has battled over. And if some may argue that there would have been no other way to reach scientific progress: the questions about „historical necessities“ remain open to this day.
Saying that victims of physical and mental objectificating procedures could in no case have been omitted means to keep the rational of injustice toward animality and animal-human history in place.
Natural sciences and animal objectification *
an abstract perspective on the world
from a human standpoint,
that locates “thinking” and
“the capacity of experiencing freedom”
in certain body parts (as complex or primitive) and their functions;
(a stance counterpointed by a basso continuo of purposeful evolutionary “natural selection” – the survival of the “fittest”)
Speciesism / Animal Objectification and logics
when injustice is declared to be “making sense”;
with a limited objectivity –
underlying life the arbitrariness of
“relevance”, “utility”, “rationality”, calculation
* animal objectification / speciesism / animal harted / animal negation … anything going in these directions
Note: the medicalization of breaking the borders of integrity from human to nonhumanity is the face of the anthropogenic disaster on its own place of the map.
And: mixing in rhetorics of utility keeps evading the injustice debate.