Poll: Morality (Yep, another one)

[internetzealot1]

Hell to the no.

 

[natster43]

Nope. If it can help people without any huge ramification to those animals (Extinction or close to it)then do it. Though if testing it on humans would help create a cure faster then test it on humans.

 

[Kurokami]

Looking at the big picture, the good far outweighs the bad.

So no

If the testing were done on humans it would be alright then? The humans being tested on having varying results ranging from death to whatever else would be outweighed by the amount of people who could after words use the drug to save or rather extend their life.

Depends, doesn't it? Are we talking about a treatment that can save countless lives and requires human testing? Then, yes. Are we talking about something that could be tested on animals, but isn't? Then, no. Are we talking about a time difference between the two of ten years? Depends on how deadly the disease is, isn't it?

Well lets say it takes 200 people to be tested on, this drug will extend life by say 10 years, but will end, shorten, or simply ruin (crippling them, for me that would be ruining really) their lives in exchange.

The drug will easily provide more life than it cost which can be considered 'more good than harm', but is it really worth it in your opinion?

By the way, don't get me wrong, I care shit all about animals and this example is simply a hypothetical because I really dislike Utilitarianism (I might be confusing terms here, but that ought to be right) ideology when it invades personal rights.