I found Haraway's argument to be very delicate; however that is not to say that it is a weak argument. When I say "delicate", I mean that she takes two different opinions and carefully weaves them in to her own argument. She does trend more towards the argument that animal testing is awful, instead of the argument that it is justified by the advancements; nevertheless, she does recognize that there are times when animal testing can be used to make great advancements. I think that she lays out a large part of her argument on page 75. "To me that does not mean people cannot ever engage in experimental animal lab practices, including causing pain and killing. It does mean that these practices should never leave their practitioners in moral comfort, sure of their righteousness." In other words, though the scientist may make a great advancement s/he should not forget that s/he inflicted pain on and killed animals. Later on, she says, on page 81, that "human beings must learn to kill responsibly." Again, she acknowledges that killing of animals may, at times, necessitate itself; however, this does not mean that we can do this whenever we want.
I largely agree with her argument. I think that it is important to remember that many advancements that have been made in the scientific and medical fields were due, in part, to animals. We cannot place ourselves supremely over the world without remembering the cost. If we are to kill animals for our food, we should do so in a humane manner. There are times when it is justifiable to kill, or use, animals; however, as Haraway says, we must not feel righteous, and we must remember the cost.
-Andy Albright
I also agree with Haraway's argument. I feel that she does a good job of presenting both sides and integrating it with each other. Yes, using animals is not morally correct, but by using them we are able to cure many diseases today.
ReplyDeleteIn context with what we read in part II of "They Say, I Say" Haraway does a good job of utilizing the third option to respond, which is agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously. Haraway demonstrates that her essay isn't "wishy-washy"; her point wasn't to take either side, but to remind us that we need to keep our superiority complex in check.
"Delicate" is an apt term for H's kind of theory work. As we mentioned in class, H gravitates toward metaphors that emphasize complexity and entanglement across boundaries, from cat's cradles and knots to science fiction cyborgs.
ReplyDelete