Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 02:25:00 -
[31]
lol, japanese -
DesuSigs |
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 15:49:00 -
[32]
Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Pretty sick and immoral imo.
Yes, because animals never kill eachother in nature. It's so immoral to not let them die in arbitrary circumstances in nature.. --- CEO
|
Shinnen
Caldari Northern Intelligence The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 16:05:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Crumplecorn lol, japanese
Hahah that's what I'm thinking
lol, anon -- Banned since 2005, back by popular demand! They said it wouldn't happen!! |
Troye
Gallente Strix Armaments and Defence
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 16:57:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Jin Entres
Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Pretty sick and immoral imo.
Yes, because animals never kill eachother in nature. It's so immoral to not let them die in arbitrary circumstances in nature..
Explain how puting 2 animals in a glass cage and watching them kill eachother is natural? Animals are a resource but that dosnt give us the liberty to inflict pain on them for our own pleasure.
Originally by: GM Nova What the hell???
|
Omarvelous
Destry's Lounge
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 17:02:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Troye
Originally by: Jin Entres
Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Pretty sick and immoral imo.
Yes, because animals never kill eachother in nature. It's so immoral to not let them die in arbitrary circumstances in nature..
Explain how puting 2 animals in a glass cage and watching them kill eachother is natural? Animals are a resource but that dosnt give us the liberty to inflict pain on them for our own pleasure.
I'd be just as much for watching two inmates in death row duke it out gladiator style in an arena.... __________________________________________________ Sup brosef! Destry's Lounge is looking for a few good drunks - contact me in game.
|
Rawr Cristina
Caldari Cult of Rawr
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 17:04:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Omarvelous
Originally by: Troye
Originally by: Jin Entres
Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Pretty sick and immoral imo.
Yes, because animals never kill eachother in nature. It's so immoral to not let them die in arbitrary circumstances in nature..
Explain how puting 2 animals in a glass cage and watching them kill eachother is natural? Animals are a resource but that dosnt give us the liberty to inflict pain on them for our own pleasure.
I'd be just as much for watching two inmates in death row duke it out gladiator style in an arena....
UT had the right idea...
|
Micheal Dietrich
Caldari The Delta Source Dread Sovereign
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 17:22:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Troye
Originally by: Jin Entres
Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Pretty sick and immoral imo.
Yes, because animals never kill eachother in nature. It's so immoral to not let them die in arbitrary circumstances in nature..
Explain how puting 2 animals in a glass cage and watching them kill eachother is natural? Animals are a resource but that dosnt give us the liberty to inflict pain on them for our own pleasure.
And people weren't awed and fascinated and a little amuesed by the battle at krueger? Or how about every video documentary on animal planet when they show a lion taking down a zebra, is that cruel and unusual becuase someone filmed it.
Or maybe the people who film their pet snake eating a rabbit because it has to eat sometime. I bet your one of those types that would like to see zoo's shut down so our children lose the chance to see exotic animals close up. Or maybe close down the meat factory because our thousands of years old tradition of raising cattle is considered barbaric.
|
Isiskhan
Gnostic Misanthropy
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 17:39:00 -
[38]
This reminds me of things I used to do when I was younger and lived on the outskirts of the city with a garden.
Next time you find a spider at home, don't just whack it: get a transparent plastic box of some sort (I remember using those Ferrero Rocher chocolate ones) and trap it inside. Then, as you find more spiders (or even other bugs), keep putting them inside the box. It's fascinating to observe them catch and devour each other.
|
Amberly Coteaz
Amarr Blood Corsair's Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 17:52:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Amberly Coteaz on 11/01/2008 17:52:19 CCP clearly need to boost Scorpians...
bit harsh that they put the biggest, meanest, badass mother f***ing hornet in the box with a weedy little scorp
If you find yourself in a fair fight, something has gone wrong |
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 17:59:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Jin Entres on 11/01/2008 18:01:43
Originally by: Troye
Originally by: Jin Entres
Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Pretty sick and immoral imo.
Yes, because animals never kill eachother in nature. It's so immoral to not let them die in arbitrary circumstances in nature..
Explain how puting 2 animals in a glass cage and watching them kill eachother is natural? Animals are a resource but that dosnt give us the liberty to inflict pain on them for our own pleasure.
Natural?
Quote:
Appeal to Nature Alias:
* Argumentum ad Naturam * Naturalistic Fallacy
Forms: N is natural. Therefore, N is right or good.
U is unnatural. Therefore, U is wrong or bad.
'Another problem is that the word "natural" is loaded with a positive evaluation, much like the word "normal". So, to call something "natural" is not simply to describe it, but to praise it. This explains why it sometimes sounds odd to call some things "natural" or "unnatural". For instance, it is unnatural to wear shoes, but few would wish to condemn the practice. For this reason, to call something "natural" and then to conclude that it is, therefore, good may beg the question.'
Liberty to inflict pain? All organisms look out for themselves. They often if not mostly do this at the expense of others. Humans are no different. We have morals because it is beneficial if not fundamental to the functioning of society; codes of conduct and culturally created morality serves to embetter the lives of us all by inhibiting behaviour that is only beneficial to the individual and not society. Human rights and liberty are important constructs worth preserving and valuing, but not because they represent something fundamentally transcendent but because they are vitally useful to us.
The notion that animals have similar rights is easily fuelled by our capacity for empathy; ie. relating to their pain. It may of course serve ourselves to spare them from pain by making us feel better, but from the point of view of social reciprocity, it serves no purpose. It can be seen as a misfiring, if you will, of our evolutionarily developed altruistic tendencies, which I might add is also one of the current theories for explaining altruism on a wider (non-kin) scale.
So simply put, we don't have a pact with bugs that serves our benefit. If we want to refrain from exploiting them to our amusement on any grounds, it is only to make us feel better. --- CEO
|
|
4rc4ng3L
Bi0Sh0ck
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 18:03:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Troye
Originally by: Jin Entres
Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Pretty sick and immoral imo.
Yes, because animals never kill eachother in nature. It's so immoral to not let them die in arbitrary circumstances in nature..
Explain how puting 2 animals in a glass cage and watching them kill eachother is natural? Animals are a resource but that dosnt give us the liberty to inflict pain on them for our own pleasure.
Insects/spiders arnt animals....
|
Jago Kain
Amarr Ramm's RDI
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 18:34:00 -
[42]
Originally by: 4rc4ng3L Insects/spiders arnt animals....
Erm... yes they are actually. They aren't mammals, but that's a different argument.
Look, if you're going to troll the forums picking holes, you might want to look up some definitions of words first.
Here's one to get you started. Oxford Compact Definition
...and before you start, yes I know definition 2 applies, but that's common useage, not the root definition.
___________________________________________________ The game will never be over, because we're keeping the meme alive. |
Troye
Gallente Strix Armaments and Defence
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 19:36:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Troye on 11/01/2008 19:37:51
Originally by: Jin Entres
Natural?
Quote:
Appeal to Nature Alias:
* Argumentum ad Naturam * Naturalistic Fallacy
Forms: N is natural. Therefore, N is right or good.
U is unnatural. Therefore, U is wrong or bad.
'Another problem is that the word "natural" is loaded with a positive evaluation, much like the word "normal". So, to call something "natural" is not simply to describe it, but to praise it. This explains why it sometimes sounds odd to call some things "natural" or "unnatural". For instance, it is unnatural to wear shoes, but few would wish to condemn the practice. For this reason, to call something "natural" and then to conclude that it is, therefore, good may beg the question.'
Liberty to inflict pain? All organisms look out for themselves. They often if not mostly do this at the expense of others. Humans are no different. We have morals because it is beneficial if not fundamental to the functioning of society; codes of conduct and culturally created morality serves to embetter the lives of us all by inhibiting behaviour that is only beneficial to the individual and not society. Human rights and liberty are important constructs worth preserving and valuing, but not because they represent something fundamentally transcendent but because they are vitally useful to us.
The notion that animals have similar rights is easily fuelled by our capacity for empathy; ie. relating to their pain. It may of course serve ourselves to spare them from pain by making us feel better, but from the point of view of social reciprocity, it serves no purpose. It can be seen as a misfiring, if you will, of our evolutionarily developed altruistic tendencies, which I might add is also one of the current theories for explaining altruism on a wider (non-kin) scale.
So simply put, we don't have a pact with bugs that serves our benefit. If we want to refrain from exploiting them to our amusement on any grounds, it is only to make us feel better.
So youÆre disregarding empathy towards organisms outside our own species as a bi-product of altruism? ThatÆs why accounting for every facet of the human condition with an evolutionary purpose is so easy; you can disregard anything that doesnÆt "fit" as a simple after-effect.
But to argue on your grounds; what makes you so certain empathy towards animals serves no philanthropic purpose? When an animal is killed for meat the butcher has the option to inflict pain onto it but his choice not to is a preservation of his morals, which by your definition is what holds civilisation in place. If altruism is so easily translatable towards species not our own the true can be said in reverse, it's well documented that psychopaths exploit animals in this way before moving on to human victims. It is the act of causing pain to another creature, whether that be human or animal, that results in the degradation of our constructed morals.
Don't take me for some animal rights nutcase, I eat meat, I just prefer to know my meat hasnÆt been tortured before it gets to my plate.
Originally by: GM Nova What the hell???
|
Battleclash
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 19:44:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Troye
Originally by: Jin Entres
I have no issue with the videos on this thread
Your not a treehugger, are you, you sadistic bastard?
Paragraphs for the lazy....
Originally by: Vladimir Ilych Stupidity is universal.
|
Kyguard
Fire Mandrill
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 19:58:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Jin Entres
Liberty to inflict pain? All organisms look out for themselves. They often if not mostly do this at the expense of others. Humans are no different. We have morals because it is beneficial if not fundamental to the functioning of society; codes of conduct and culturally created morality serves to embetter the lives of us all by inhibiting behaviour that is only beneficial to the individual and not society. Human rights and liberty are important constructs worth preserving and valuing, but not because they represent something fundamentally transcendent but because they are vitally useful to us.
The notion that animals have similar rights is easily fuelled by our capacity for empathy; ie. relating to their pain. It may of course serve ourselves to spare them from pain by making us feel better, but from the point of view of social reciprocity, it serves no purpose. It can be seen as a misfiring, if you will, of our evolutionarily developed altruistic tendencies, which I might add is also one of the current theories for explaining altruism on a wider (non-kin) scale.
So simply put, we don't have a pact with bugs that serves our benefit. If we want to refrain from exploiting them to our amusement on any grounds, it is only to make us feel better.
I wonder if you really believe this crap. Maybe we should start up the colosseum again and start watching animals kill each other? Anybody who is enjoying watching these fights needs to go see a frickin doctor. -
Latest Video |
Micheal Dietrich
Caldari The Delta Source Dread Sovereign
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 20:01:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Kyguard
I wonder if you really believe this crap. Maybe we should start up the colosseum again and start watching animals kill each other? Anybody who is enjoying watching these fights needs to go see a frickin doctor.
Why bother, we've already got youtube and Animal planet. And yes, I enjoyed it. I savored every moment of the fight and even placed bets with coworkers.
|
NuFlow
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 21:42:00 -
[47]
Very nice find
|
Praxis1452
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 22:14:00 -
[48]
If the fights were kinda fair it'd be ok but I feel bad when the insect runs. ôHe who must expend his life to prolong life cannot enjoy it, and he who is still seeking for his life does not have it and can as little enjoy it.ö
|
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 22:47:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Kyguard
I wonder if you really believe this crap. Maybe we should start up the colosseum again and start watching animals kill each other? Anybody who is enjoying watching these fights needs to go see a frickin doctor.
You need only take the most superficial glance at what television has to offer to notice that it is saturated with violence. And it sells. Luckily we don't need to harm people (most of the time, anyway) to make television because we can enjoy fictional cruelty just aswell.
I have yet to encounter a convincing postulation of morality as something else than selfishness (note: not neccessarily conscious) on the group level. Of course, maintaining the illusion of transcendence and absolute values serves the society well because individuals are more likely to adhere to control if they do not question it.
Your reaction suggests that you resent the infliction of pain. Is this not, in part, because you wish to avoid pain yourself and empathize with the pain of others -- both people and animals -- to which or whom you can relate to? You may also think that whenever you accept causing pain, you also increase your own likelihood of receiving it if not outright invite it. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but this is partly what I feel when I consider my reaction to seeing pain.
I may have misinterpreted you, however. Perhaps you are not objecting to the suffering of animals, but merely the act of enjoying it as entertainment. A good rule of thumb might perhaps be to not enjoy it because such an environment will, on average, have more human violence. From this perspective I accept your objection. In fact, despite enjoying the fights myself (to some extent, let's not get carried away and pretend it's **** or anything), I would hope that the population at large does not.
Lastly, I assure you that my capacity for human compassion, prosociality, charity and kindness is not compromised and to suggest so -- not that you have -- is misguided. But thank you for your concern.
Originally by: Troye So youÆre disregarding empathy towards organisms outside our own species as a bi-product of altruism? ThatÆs why accounting for every facet of the human condition with an evolutionary purpose is so easy; you can disregard anything that doesnÆt "fit" as a simple after-effect.
It's not about the explanation that you like the most. The byproduct theory of altruism is one that I find most compelling, and would explain altruism that extends beyond kin and even species, as in the case of animals. I made no attempts to account for every aspect of the human condition nor want to deny the magnificiently complex culture we've created for ourselves. If you purport that the evolutionary perspective cheapens those aspects, you misrepresent it.
Originally by: Troye
But to argue on your grounds; what makes you so certain empathy towards animals serves no philanthropic purpose? When an animal is killed for meat the butcher has the option to inflict pain onto it but his choice not to is a preservation of his morals, which by your definition is what holds civilisation in place.
I called into question the legitimacy of concern for bug suffering as a moral objection. The concept of morality is of course a stinking pile of value baggage which often makes discussion difficult. In any case, you seem to accept my definition for it as a function of social control that encourages behaviour that benefits the group or society at the expense of the individual. If I understand you correctly, you assert that as a rule of thumb it is better to avoid pain altogether, and that perhaps a more narrow inhibition of suffering would not work as a 'moral rule'. If I misunderstand you, I apologise. I find this unconvincing because the suffering being inflicted is strikingly frequent and cruel aswell as selective. (continued on the next page) --- CEO
|
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 22:48:00 -
[50]
I find it more likely that the butcher in your example is motivated by empathy when they come face to face (rather literally, too) with suffering, a function that serves the human society. We are predisposed to relate to suffering in this way whether it is human or animal. But the reason we are is because it has been beneficial to us. Do you know why moths fly into lamps and get fried? It's because they have a rule of thumb: go toward the light. 99% of the time it is good and even vital for them. But sometimes it misfires because rules of thumb are just that.
I am always prepared to confront alternative views and change my opinion if sufficiently good a case is made. I certainly do not claim to have the final word on the matter.
I would like to add that even if I was of the opinion that animal suffering is bad (mmkay?), replicating rare occurances of two bugs fighting in the nature is quite different from the systematic slaughter and torture of animals that more political concern and moral objections have been raised over.
In any case, I trust I've clarified my position. Now, let us enjoy the weekend. --- CEO
|
|
MAXSuicide
Cosmic Fusion When Fat Kids Attack
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 23:54:00 -
[51]
Edited by: MAXSuicide on 11/01/2008 23:54:38
Originally by: Jin Entres
Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Pretty sick and immoral imo.
Yes, because animals never kill eachother in nature. It's so immoral to not let them die in arbitrary circumstances in nature..
killing is, under the vast majority of circumstances, for food. essential to suvival.
This tv show is nothing more than putting reluctant animals into a tiny tub to fight to the death for some amusement. 9/10 the animals dont even want to fight each other; they are made to.
Maybe we should put u in a glass tub and make u fight to the death with a lion? Its only nature, right?
|
Micheal Dietrich
Caldari The Delta Source Dread Sovereign
|
Posted - 2008.01.12 00:09:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Micheal Dietrich on 12/01/2008 00:10:04
Originally by: MAXSuicide Edited by: MAXSuicide on 11/01/2008 23:54:38
Originally by: Jin Entres
Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Pretty sick and immoral imo.
Yes, because animals never kill eachother in nature. It's so immoral to not let them die in arbitrary circumstances in nature..
killing is, under the vast majority of circumstances, for food. essential to suvival.
This tv show is nothing more than putting reluctant animals into a tiny tub to fight to the death for some amusement. 9/10 the animals dont even want to fight each other; they are made to.
Maybe we should put u in a glass tub and make u fight to the death with a lion? Its only nature, right?
I'll do it. Should only take about 3 shots.
So many bleeding hearts, so little time.
|
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
|
Posted - 2008.01.12 00:24:00 -
[53]
Originally by: MAXSuicide
killing is, under the vast majority of circumstances, for food. essential to suvival.
This tv show is nothing more than putting reluctant animals into a tiny tub to fight to the death for some amusement. 9/10 the animals dont even want to fight each other; they are made to.
Maybe we should put u in a glass tub and make u fight to the death with a lion? Its only nature, right?
Sounds like you just went and ignored my walls of text. Anyway..
What makes survival special? The quality of subjective life is governed by length and content. Is the different benefit (our amusement) fundamentally different from the animal's benefit (longer life)? What is food therefore other than the mere extension of amusement? Conflicting interests which you prioritise by content and I prioritise by beneficiary.
The good thing about society is that most likely people who put other people into glass tubs for their amusement face consequences. If they didn't, one of us could be in one right now. It is to both our benefit that such a system exists; we've given up the liberty to toy with other people for the right to not be toyed with ourselves. A similar pact is not to our benefit with animals because they rarely have the ability to toy with us (and the fact that they don't speak english also has some influence).
And what I mean by my reference to nature is that bug fights occur in the wild on a daily basis as bugs compete for resources. I compete with lions, too, but not by fist fighting them, much as it would undoubtedly amuse everyone. If you sent a cameraman into the wild, chances are they'll come accross a fair few bug fights before they'll come accross any Jin vs lion showdowns. --- CEO
|
MAXSuicide
Cosmic Fusion When Fat Kids Attack
|
Posted - 2008.01.12 00:45:00 -
[54]
Edited by: MAXSuicide on 12/01/2008 00:45:12
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Edited by: Micheal Dietrich on 12/01/2008 00:10:04
Originally by: MAXSuicide Edited by: MAXSuicide on 11/01/2008 23:54:38
Originally by: Jin Entres
Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Pretty sick and immoral imo.
Yes, because animals never kill eachother in nature. It's so immoral to not let them die in arbitrary circumstances in nature..
killing is, under the vast majority of circumstances, for food. essential to suvival.
This tv show is nothing more than putting reluctant animals into a tiny tub to fight to the death for some amusement. 9/10 the animals dont even want to fight each other; they are made to.
Maybe we should put u in a glass tub and make u fight to the death with a lion? Its only nature, right?
I'll do it. Should only take about 3 shots.
So many bleeding hearts, so little time.
u dont have a gun, guns are man made and are not natural.
Anyone that supports these kind of 'tv shows' disgust me.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Caldari The Delta Source Dread Sovereign
|
Posted - 2008.01.12 01:01:00 -
[55]
Originally by: MAXSuicide Edited by: MAXSuicide on 12/01/2008 00:45:12
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Edited by: Micheal Dietrich on 12/01/2008 00:10:04
Originally by: MAXSuicide Edited by: MAXSuicide on 11/01/2008 23:54:38
Originally by: Jin Entres
Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Pretty sick and immoral imo.
Yes, because animals never kill eachother in nature. It's so immoral to not let them die in arbitrary circumstances in nature..
killing is, under the vast majority of circumstances, for food. essential to suvival.
This tv show is nothing more than putting reluctant animals into a tiny tub to fight to the death for some amusement. 9/10 the animals dont even want to fight each other; they are made to.
Maybe we should put u in a glass tub and make u fight to the death with a lion? Its only nature, right?
I'll do it. Should only take about 3 shots.
So many bleeding hearts, so little time.
u dont have a gun, guns are man made and are not natural.
Anyone that supports these kind of 'tv shows' disgust me.
Things like teeth, claws, stingers, hardened shells, poisonous glands, and camouflage are part of a natural evolution designed over thousands of years to protect the creature in question. Man's evolution was ingenuity and the ability to create weapons with the tools on hand ranging from a rock and a big stick to current day weaponry.
This show demonstrates each insects natural abilities and how they pair with each other.
So yes, I do have a gun and I now owe myself another $5 because I knew you were gonna say that.
|
QwaarJet
Gallente hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.01.12 01:16:00 -
[56]
My first reaction was sadness, but I actually found the fights rather exciting. Not sure what to make of that.
If it were cats/dogs other animals at that level, I'd be appalled. But insects suck. No one likes them, and they are right at the bottom of the food chain.
It's not exactly nice what they do, but not something I'm bothered about either.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Caldari The Delta Source Dread Sovereign
|
Posted - 2008.01.12 01:23:00 -
[57]
Originally by: QwaarJet My first reaction was sadness, but I actually found the fights rather exciting. Not sure what to make of that.
If it were cats/dogs other animals at that level, I'd be appalled. But insects suck. No one likes them, and they are right at the bottom of the food chain.
It's not exactly nice what they do, but not something I'm bothered about either.
I'll agree with that statement. Bugs are one thing, theres millions of them. Now if it were dog fighting or something then I'd feel differently about the topic.
|
Rethor Badus
Gallente Eye Of Horus
|
Posted - 2008.01.12 01:30:00 -
[58]
Tbh, i dont approve...
Allot of people here saying "oh its ok for insects, but not dogs & cats", personally my compassion for animals isn't based on how much i like them or how "cute" they are.. the simple fact is, its two lifeforms forced to kill each other for our amusement...
Compassion should not be based on your estimation of a creatures worth or intelligence....
And for the record, i hate insects.. but this is not right imo
|
Rawr Cristina
Caldari Cult of Rawr
|
Posted - 2008.01.12 01:40:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 12/01/2008 01:43:57 I throw bugs that annoy me into the nearest spider webs to watch how the spider reacts to it. I suppose that's immoral
Oh, I also own a cat. He regularly goes outside and kills birds and mice. It isn't essential to his survival in any way. Essentially I'm providing a predator with everything it needs to kill (food, safety, hunting grounds) in the name of amusement - yet there is nothing 'morally' wrong with it, despite how unnatural the domestic housecat actually is.
Not that I enjoy the act of forcing 2 animals into a fight they don't want, but that's a personal thing. I despise moral high-horse hypocrites just as much.
|
Kyrial Tidolfas
|
Posted - 2008.01.12 01:59:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Kyrial Tidolfas on 12/01/2008 02:00:20 Morality is an important construct because it gives a definite advantage to a human society.
as such, morality does not apply to non-sentient.
while we do empathise, rightly or wrongly, with lesser animals. animals do not reciprocate, revenge or repay. as such, empathy towards animals is null-beneficial.
yet to say that morality and our instinct that compels us should only be looked under evolutionary light is misguided. in its very strange way, we humans have become transcendent in our perception of the world. not godly transcendental, but transcendental in a way that there are things, possibly accidental products of evolution that are not entirely beneficial to us. In world war 2, people would hide jews in their house, risking their own life for practically non-existent gain. is it altruism that ha been taken too far? many people volunteer in times of disaster, to help other people half the world away, who are impossible to reciprocate.
so to say that our actions should be guided only by evolutionary law, that we do what we do only because it is evolutionary advantageous, is not entirely right.
as such, to empathise with animals is acceptable. and to say that because they cant repay our favor we should not help them, is to ignore the fact facing us that we have evolved, perhaps accidentally, to become far more that a slave of survival.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |