Ethical dilemma: Whose life is more valuable? - Rebecca L. Walker

Video quality	The size	Download

Information Ethical dilemma: Whose life is more valuable? - Rebecca L. Walker

Title	:	Ethical dilemma: Whose life is more valuable? - Rebecca L. Walker
Lasting	:	6.06
Date of publication	:
Views	:	527 rb

this is not even a dilemma
Comment from : Rah

of course human life is more valuable
Comment from : Rah

Well in my opinion it’s okay in two situations , one it’s really important aka yeah medicine justifies this as long as the animals isn’t nearing extinction or the animal is overpopulated and is causing problems so removing them will really help people regardless
Comment from : Isfren

Nature is more valuable than any human government!!!
Comment from : Marcel Penuela Traub

🔥❤️🫠🤪😎
Comment from : Caio

I respect
Comment from : sharath narra

Read the bible
Comment from : 3rd Eye Saw Destruction

Id use prisoners (like murders or r@pists not like just ppl who robbed someone)
Comment from : TheaterXanecx

LE A RE AKETSA MAAKA🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Comment from : BRIGHT

ban all tests on animals just because we live in social cages doesnt give us the right to cage and abuse another animal, we are animals too
Comment from : timkbir chico

I bet if monkeys were intelligent like humans, those monkeys would have killed humans for their own research They will do the same to us I will help humans because I’m a human Monkeys will help monkeys just because they are monkeys Don’t care how much, I feel superior just because I’m a human
Comment from : Adam Artzi

If it were your Mother that had a disease or malady and her life hangs in the balance of testing animals to "even maybe" save her, how many monkeys would you draw the line at? 1, 100, 1000000100? For me the choice is simple, whatever it takesbrWe can always breed more monkeys, you only get one Mother It's not a moral question to me at all, it's about the #1 person and as many monkeys as needed toeven if it's just an attempt Just about the numbers
Comment from : patrick wolf

Welcome to the separation of church and state God is dead, my friends Enter: the subjectivity of morals and values
Comment from : Joy Frimpong

Every mammal's life is equally valuable
Comment from : ShreyanPOL 🇷🇺

you won't test every single animal, but you might put every single human in danger it's killing maybe like 100 to 1,000 to save 8 billion
Comment from : oven

Mine
Comment from : Anonymous

I believe that humans tend to perceive each other as more valuable because we are part of a society As members of this society, we all play important roles in making it work smoothly Therefore, it's natural for us to prioritize preserving human lives to maintain the strength and stability of our society brFrom my perspective, objectively, animals' lives are not less valuable than human lives However, their impact on our society is generally less pronounced This could be one of the reasons why we tend to place a higher value on our own species and those in closer proximity to us, such as people in our country, community, or family Since they are more closely connected to us, their presence, lives, or absence can have a more direct impact on our daily lives, leading us to perceive their value as higher
Comment from : Wendy GB

Its not about animals are equal to humans its about humans equal to the animals
Comment from : حسین عباسیان

Its all about power
Comment from : lemon

If they don't run tests will the monkeys also get sick if and when the virus is released These ethical dilemmas are never as simple as theory portrays
Comment from : Marsha LePage

I leave the video with more confusion than before 😢
Comment from : Deep into Physics

Morals only value among the members of the same species, when it comes to different species, one will protect and prioritize their own brbrAnd it's not unjustifiable 🤷🏻‍♀️
Comment from : stressed_vivi

I feel like this is a sort of trolley problem situation, except it’s kill animals to save many humans I also didn’t finish the video before commenting this so I don’t even know
Comment from : X̶A̶N̶N̶

In my opinion, animals are resources and should be used for humans However, just because you use them doesn't mean you can mistreat them For example, there's nothing wrong in eating chicken But why are they living in cramped conditions, unable to walk, with no sunlight? Nothing wrong in experimenting on monkeys, but why not at least put them in a big cage with a view of the sky? Why are we giving them the barest minimum to survive? brbrYes I know this is all money but we are already using and consuming them at least give them a bit of cheer before death
Comment from : Inuhund Chien

I do think that most beings deserve a right to a quick and painless death That includes humans and animals If you’re hunting or fishing, kill ‘em quick
Comment from : SirLuke on YT

humans have greatest moral status because we are made in the image of God, while ants are not That's why i can kill 1,000 ants in my front yard without being guilty of immorality
Comment from : B K

For most humans, I think that other humans have more value Just for the fact that interacting with other humans would bring more benefit than interacting with monkeys is reason enough A book in a language you can read is worth 100 books in a language you can't
Comment from : Alexander Sierra

Assigning any more value to monkeys than other species of animals like pigs and cows, just because they’re more closely related to us, is utterly goofy and bizarre The suffering of a monkey is not worse than the suffering of any other animal— and the capacity to suffer being judged by intelligence is ridiculous in the first place and something only humans would care about
Comment from : Prickly_Procyonids

Typically we don't move to testing on primates prior to testing on other animals And even lesser animals like fruit flies have ethical protections to minimize both use, death, and suffering of them The more sapient a creature can be proven to be, the more protections they receive Experimentation on the chordates is intensive, and requires much previous testing to even be on the table By the time we get to Monkeys, most of these things have been tested and proven effective brAdditionally, even once it passes monkeys, we still do wind up testing on humans (But I understand that's less morally grey since the people being tested on have informed consent about potential risks)
Comment from : Chacho Paul

Agent Smith was right
Comment from : CrLostArt

Humans believe they are more important, because they can Will it or will it not! Just because you can doesn't imply you should brOr that it is morally ethical, or right Right according to who, what, when etc
Comment from : Daniel Nielsen

I would experiment on convicts for exchange shortening their punishment
Comment from : LOL MAN

In my opinion, i think it's just all about who does have power Humans are in the top of the food chain so basically we think the we are more important
Comment from : inkdrinkerhana

This is a pretty good highschool level essay
Comment from : MyBrainHurts

As a Christian, I believe that human lives are more important as we were created in God's own image and likeness Obviously, not everyone will believe that though I still do think that animal lives are important and I also think that we as humans should try to protect animal lives as much as we possibly can but at the end of the day when required, human lives should be placed above animal lives
Comment from : Cessa🖤

Mosquitoes:
Comment from : NargacugaLover

Have anyone also considered the ethics of just destroying the virus? And of course this way no one will be harmed by the virus again and there’s no need for testing but also it is very important to safe and record or knowledge so there’s an ethics of keeping the samples or a completely erase them
Comment from : Owen Dowling

but PLEASE I want these types of videos being promoted on every social media!, not ads about music gender I DON'T like nor CANVAS courses!
Comment from : Mariana Vidal

If we won't test on humans, why test on animals? It's the samee thing as not being able to kill your friend, so you kill a stranger instead, and that seems to be more ethical They have done nothing to us, why should we do something to them?
Comment from : Sloane Martin

The ones fitting the best for the experiments are the ones who are closest to us,but more similar animals get to us,the more unethical it seems to hurt themSolidarity is based on alikeness
Comment from : Sophia Erren

I’d rather die from a natural virus than survive by getting a vaccine that was tested on other animals No life is better than another
Comment from : Kellen Ungaro

Easy solution: test on death row inmates
Comment from : Namazu

what a irritating coloring using brunette man for comparison, why not a white man instead? curious
Comment from : Özge Durukan

Why do we even keep smallpox samples? Why not just destroy them all? If we do that, we could prevent this moral dilemma, save the monkeys, and potentially save humans, too
Comment from : Will McQuistan

I'm a vegan and I do my best to bring the least suffering to all sentient beings That said, I take medications that I'm sure have been tested on animals, eat fruits and vegetables that in order to produce them required field mice and insects to be killed It's not about doing no harm, it's to the best of your ability The moral dilemma presented is a tough one, all sentient beings deserve to live, but we also need to survive as a species
Comment from : Laurie Castro

We’re animals too We should be fine with eating other animals Experimenting? I guess… but maybe we should think about what if one of ours was in their position Just because they’re less intelligent doesn’t mean they can’t feel or have feelings
Comment from : Lineproof

In reality, it’s the cost of the animals relative to the value of the treatment that determines this question
Comment from : Mike Bauer

Just because the “how many monkeys is a human life worth?” question is “tricky,” that does not mean there isn’t an answer Just because the human’s situation “complicates the calculation,” that does not mean you can’t still do the calculation Basically, just because you can make an argument that ends with asking “where is the line?” that does not mean there isn’t a line If we agree that we would sacrifice 5 monkeys to save a human, but we wouldn’t sacrifice 10,000 monkeys for some nebulous chance to possibly save human life, we don’t have to conclude this is a contradiction indicative of a fallacy in our original 5 monkeys for 1 human judgement We can pretty reasonably conclude that there exists a line somewhere between those two examples, which may be different for different people, but we don’t need to throw the baby out with the bath water I think I’d probably kill about 500 monkeys for a 50 chance of saving 2 human lives
Comment from : Sam Weldon

the logic breaks when you say 5 monkey's are the worth of one human we dont kill monkey's to save humans we test our drugs and find what works, afterwards we save countless humans with the sacrifice of a couple monkey's
Comment from : Dr Claw

We should conduct these scientific experiments on convicts who have committed murder or something As a convict can give back to life instead of only have taken it away
Comment from : Jeffrey van der Post

This video does a good job demonstrating some of the biggest ethical dilemmas facing modern medical research It spends a large amount of time discussing moral status and whether sacrificing animal subjects is validated Although this video uses a mostly unbiased approach there is a definite bias presented through the animation choices and the depth into which the issue is debated Indeed, the author of the video neglected to mention anything about the process of approving animal research which becomes increasingly more difficult as you work with different animal models that could be argued to have higher moral status such as cats, dogs, or monkeys IACUC or institutional animal care and use committee are utilized at each institution in the United States to ensure that each experiment has a project that will provide each animal with the most humane experience in order to answer certain research questions that must be vigorously supported and justified by the researcher performing the investigation The video mainly just portrays the process as one of suffering of each animal that is utilized in this research, but it is much more complicated than that However, I understand that the purpose of this video is more to provide a though provoking experience for the viewers than it is to argue for or against animal research I just wanted to comment and clarify that it’s more complex than what the video portrays That being said, I will acquiesce to more wise individuals to determine the answers to such philosophical questions and determinations of moral status and how do we determine the value of a life, whether human or non-human
Comment from : Future Doctor

Capital punishment Child rapists, cereal murderers, cereal rapists, etc, stick them with it They're not humans anymore, who cares
Comment from : Nicholas Hills

First Rebecca discusses how we use animals for testing, and I used to support this idea because that’s how I was taught, from a young age, scientist figured things out plus if it could potentially be bad- why test it on ourselves first, right? It made sense We needed another human-like subject that wasn’t human to test potentially life threatening or lifesaving experiments to establish what does not or does benefit our own kind Doesn’t quite make sense when one points out the one-sided benefit to this situation, now does it? I believe in terms of symbiotic relationship that would make us a parasite where we are benefited while the other species is harmed Rebecca brings up this issue because the US government is funding research to improve treatments and vaccines against smallpox to protect against a possible resurge Since it's unethical to expose people to a highly lethal virus, labs are using monkeys as research subjects brI believe it is unethical to expose the animals to a highly lethal virus also First, they have no say It they had a choice, I bet they would run away No monkey would want to be stabbed by needles, leave its trees and family to be kept in a cage, or potentially die to save a species that is not its own I guarantee you a human wouldn’t do it for the monkeys! Also, we need monkeys on this earth Just like us, there is a reason they are still here and adapting Rebecca mentioned how monkeys have shown intelligent and emotion Why are humans the ones who get to decide what happens to their species? Lastly, let me kindly remind you that the concerns are for a possible resurge We might be killing all these monkeys, ruining the biosystem, and wasting product, and time for potentially no reason at all I didn’t realize how passionate I was about stopping animal testing until after watching Rebecca’s video She brings up excellent points and questions if this is or will get out of hand? brI think it will We need improvements in healthcare but we also need biodiversity The world cannot function without humans, animals, insects, plants, etc If humans are worth it because they are so smart and evolving the fastest than they can find another way to test the products that will benefit them without being a parasite to other species
Comment from : Shaylee Renner

Trolley problem but between different species
Comment from : Tyler Gust

Mine
Comment from : Lee Richardson

We should use criminal who are given death sentences
Comment from : Darshil Shah

Human lives are more important to humans
Comment from : keltar2007

Either don't give other species any moral value or give humans infinite moral value I think the latter is how most people make value judgements brbrMost would consider it morally wrong to kill one person and harvest their organs to save 5 The only way this makes sense arithmetically is if humans have infinite moral value
Comment from : SeanHaz

How is a monkey's life even comparable to a humans; a humans life is worth more because its a humans, no further moral reasoning required Monkeys are lesser beings, and therefore their lives are worthless when compared to a humans
Comment from : Anna Kasov

In my opinion, as people can consider what is ethical and what isn't they have more responsibility for a life of those who cannot So, people should take care of animals and any other life or at least don't harm them because animals, just like humans, have equal rights to live on the Earth
Comment from : Олександр Печак

if there is a chance to live better because we killed a lot of animals for science, so be it even if not leading to success, because some other experiment might those who think like ooh we shouldn't experiment on animals should be stripped the rewards of those experiments like for example modern medicine, perfumes and makeup and the list goes on and on most of our modern lives great things came from animal testing before modern makeups, ppl used gold, mercury and such poison heck ppl even drink mercury and believed it is medicine because it looks cool :D
Comment from : Akos Feher

Although the discussion about animal lives vs human lives is good, picking animal experimentation as an example is pretty bad We're saving far, far more human lives with animal experimentation than the animals killed If the discussion is to be somewhere it should be about factory farming
Comment from : Eggys Old Account

Experimenting on animals for a hypothetical situation, in my mind is wrong
Comment from : Rita Greenwood

video dosent lead to anything
Comment from : Saurabh Nikhade

just use people in Bihar up West Bengal just give their family money if he dies or face problem, many of us here have no life no future so its better atleast we could save humans and other animals
Comment from : Md Yusuf Ansari

use it on humans but just murderers and rapists
Comment from : minnie

While I agree that animals don't deserve to be slaughtered for no reason, it seems absurd to suggest that it would be more ethical to test experimental drugs on humans, or to not test them at all
Comment from : MahiMahi715 Aviation

This is about self-preservation at the end of the day
Comment from : Igor Guimarães Elvis Presley

Don’t experiment on animals just don’t I eat meat but I don’t eat a squid or octopus that’s wrong DO NOT KILL APES MONKEYS OR CHIMPANZEES I DO NOT REALLY RESPECT THOSE WHO DO you can justify it all you want but there’s no solid justification to do it hurt any intelligent animal do hurt dolphins elephants or anything like that this should also be implied to endangered species as well the extinction of a species isn’t worth saving a few human lives in my opinion
Comment from : RebelCommander7 Star Wars Jurassic

Most People belivie in God So it's can answear almost all moral status questions "God give us the right to do whatever we want with animals" Humans slaves once was like animals to their masters and sociaties
Comment from : Dicas de inglês

I won't worry about this until I have to make this decision But I admit I value one human over one chimpanzee But not one human over 10,000 chimpanzees I am not sure where the number would tip I am prejudiced against non-humans
Comment from : Cat Lily

What about experiments on a number of monkeys to protect thousands, perhaps millions of BOTH monkey and human lives should smallpox break out? An experiment that no monkey could carry out, but could benefit from?
Comment from : T H

The value of a life is determined by, Life expectancy, intelligence (any type), if the impact of those around them in a positive or negative way and how much resources they need to survive That’s what I believe at least
Comment from : Ace Spade

In a vacuum, I would eradicate all monkeys for any one personbrbrSince we don't live in a vacuum, I need to consider what eradicating all monkeys would do to humanity as a whole brbrEven if I would eradicate all monkeys for a human, or do testing on them for the benefit (or potential benefit) of humans, I still wouldn't beat up and torture monkeys for fun brbrThis is the answer all other thoughts are wrong, thank you
Comment from : dragonicmonkey7