Quote:
|
1) Survival of the fittest has not been around since day one. It is no way formulaic to evolution and was an adaptation for Social Darwinism by Herbert Spencer. Most evolutionist do not subscribe to the "red in tooth and claw" view that most people are indoctrinated into and instead view nature as a balancing act were life and death work in concert to maintain a sustainable ecosystem
|
If nature is such a precarious balancing act, how did such a scale tipping species such as ourselves come about? Is it because we are better suited to survival? I don't know how else you'd define the fact that the human race has flourished at the expense of all other species. How else can you explain us? Survival of the fittest until one species become too fit and destroys the planet by overunning it? Isn't what we are doing just the natural course of things? Maybe earth knocks us off of the pedestal it put us on, maybe not. It doesn't matter for this discussion. Our "fitness" brought us here. In any case, how does animal medical testing disallow a sustainable ecosystem?
Quote:
|
2) Evolution is not directed. Another common misconception. Just because we have survived and are at the imaginary "top of the food chain" (literally we aren't even at the top of that) doesn't mean we are above other animals, have special rights, or are in anyway unique from all other life.
|
Why are we not above animals? You said before that eating meat is allright, isn't killing another animal to fill your belly put you clearly in the "more important than the animal" category? I think humans are more important because i am human. Call it speciocentricism or whatever. It is natural. Humans like all animals will do what they feel is in their best interest. The fact that you are alive today is a testament to the fact that you value your own life more than the life of an animal.
Quote:
|
3) Of course almost any one would likely choose an individual they are close to over an animal, but they would also choose them over another individual they are not close to. Furthermore, even granting a inherent tendency to favor one's own species that doesn't make it right, only habit. Finally, this question/point is flawed specifically because people don't need to eat meat to live and, in the case of testing, we theoretically could test on humans. Without showing either why a human life is worth more you might as well not specify the types of animals at hand and let it stand that it is okay to sacrifice entity X to save entity Y and then draw from a hat 2 animals from all life on the planet.
|
Granting your own species preferential treatment is right. What is unright about it? Every species does it, calling it a "habit" is innacurate. That's like saying that survival is merely habitual. I think that humans are generally very irresponsible when it comes to dealing with the natural world, but even the most responsible of behavior would result in the prioritization of our species, and the "habit" of putting our survival above another's. If we didn't do it cannibalism would be huge. By saying it is wrong you are attempting to invalidate the way the natural world works. Which doesn't seem right to me.
Quote:
|
4) Morality has to become involved. Logic without values is worthless. Example, look to attorneys. People professionally trained in logic and argumentation can make perfectly coherent cases for two opposing things. There has to be something to guide pure logic otherwise it is empty, aimless, and easily counter by an equally empty line of logic.
|
Wooohooo morals. Who is right, The homophobic christian or the sinning homosexual? The murdering pregnancy terminater or the idle fanatics who stalk them? While your sorting that out and getting that all nailed down, no doubt ending up with the "right" set of morals, i'll be doing what i think is justified.
Quote:
|
5) We can eat/test/abuse animals so it is right is not an excuse. The Al Queda obviously could ram a plane into the WTC, that didn't make it okay for them to do it.
|
Why wasn't it okay? They killed off nearly three thousand people who were all putting themselves on a higher level than animals. Think of all the animals who will be saved just because those people aren't gonna be here leaching resources from the planet. (sarcasm). You should've compared my argument to Hitler's. That is the best way to prove your point ever.