|
I agree that we are never going to agree.
I understand your points, at least i understand them well enough so as not to have to resort to comparing you to hitler or al quaeda unprovoked. I just tried to flip it back onto you so you could see how irrational and childish such accusations are.
As for that difference from hitler or al quaeda, i'm not advocating genocide, or the mass slaughter of people. Unless, al quaeda has some sort of animal bunker it crashed planes into, that example is underhanded and irrelevant. You're also delusional if you compare animal testing to genocide. My entire argument is based on the idea that human life is very important, more important than animal life.
You can't see any difference between animals and humans, which is why you can't understand how hitler doesn't apply to my argument.
I do think we should be responsible with nature, but i don't think animal testing is irresponsible.
Also, please don't attempt to point out incosistencies in morality, because morality is very hard to define. Despite your definition of morals and ethics, I can think that killing animals is alright but humans killing humans is not and still be moral. I can do the same thing and still be ethical too. You seem to wave these words around like there is only one set of morals and ethics. That somehow there is never an exception or that centextual ethics don't exist.
Maud, you seem to think that if we could just get rid of this attitude that humans have towards nature that all will be well. I agree that humanity has been irresponsible in its dealings with the world at large, but the attitude of which you speak is not the cause of that. Anyways "red tooth claw" or no, you have clearly put youself above animals just because you are alive today.
While it is undeniable that humanity has had an effect on the status quo of this planet, we have not done anything wholly unnatural. That is, unless you believe in creationism or the intriguing idea of intelligent design, as a species we are behaving the same way any other species in our position would.
That we are actually destroying the planet is as of yet completely unsubstantiated. I'm not saying that i don't belive in things like global warming, we are undeniably and irreparably changing the status quo of this planet. What i'm saying is that until the US finishes production on the death star, we can be pretty sure that this planet will be around long after we are gone. This "fragile balance" you speak of exists, but it will exist long after we are gone. The world didn't end with the dinosaurs either, it has also survived numerous ice ages.
|