Quote:
|
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?
|
Happy (or rather unhappy) chance.The cockroach is better suited to survive than us. It has been around longer and will likely be here long after we are gone. The fact is that what we are doing is inherently unnatural. While there have been other species in the spot light before none in history have ever been so detremental to the planet. Nature, outside of us, has always been balanced with the life and death of individual animals all pretty much working out to continue life and well being for all species. Finally, animal medical testing does not itself directly disallow for a sustainable ecosystem. However, the underlying concept that allows such behavior (specifically that it is acceptable/right/natural for us to play God over species and that we are better than them) is what is destroying our ecosystem. If we treated other life on this planet with the equalityand respect it was due then the ecosystem nor animal testing would be an issue.
Quote:
|
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.
|
As I said, killing is natural. It isn't like death doesn't occur in nature. However, in nature animals take their fill to survive, they do not horde or destroy for sport or any other reason besides to eat and protect from direct offense. First, we don't have to eat meat to live therefore its unnecessary and cruel. Second, the ability to destroy something does not make you better than it. Thirst, its called anthropicentrism, its is not to be confused with the alleged selfish gene that makes you want to propigate your own gene line (this is in serious question as of late and it looks like its false) other animals in nature live in symbiosis and and help other species... no animals are better because of our existence. Finally, there is nothing to say I wouldn't be alive if animals were treated equally that logic focuses on the red tooth and claw approach to nature which isn't the predominant theory.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Its not right to protect your species life. However, ouor species is not going to die out without medical testing on animals. However, it does endanger the whole of other species through our attitudes and through overpopulation and technilogical pollution. The fact is we can test medicine without endanger other species and without furthering the mindset that its okay to act above nature... ever
Quote:
|
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.
|
There is a difference between morals, ethics, and values. It is a fine line, but simply doing what you think is justified is making a value judgement. My point is that you can't just blow off an argument because it is an ethical argument. All argumentation and discourse is based on certain value decisions. Without acknowledging that an ethical judgement is part of every decision then you are only fooling yourself.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Sarcasm appreciated. But I never said all sinners should be killed. The answer isn't killing people, I never proposed it was, and you know as well as I do it wasn't what I was saying. The point is that the ability to do something doesn't make it justified or right. You can apply it to Hitler, the Al Queda, Wounded Knee, or your mom making you eat your greens. Unfortunately, the point of making an example is to apply your argument to something familiar to others so they understand it. I think WTC is something we can all recognize as wrong and the simple fact that it happened didn't make it right.