Zoboomafoo said:
The difficulty with your shooting-someone-in-the-face argument is that when one shoots someone in the face, the shooter had every intention to kill him. However, with our pollution, we are not actively trying to ruin lives. Does this make sense? Is it immoral to intentionally ruin a species with our pollution? I'd say so, but that isn't the case.
Indeed, the question of intention didn't enter into the formula I described, so in that sense it's not a perfect analogy.
Yet the question of whether or not the consequences are intentional doesn't change what was being demonstrated with the analogy. If we weren't intending to kill him when we shot him in the face (maybe randomly shooting in public places is a pleasurable activity for us), yet we knew it was happening as a result of shooting, would we still say "nah, no reason for us to feel bad or guilty or responsible because it was his responsibility to defend himself? How does intention change the matter, how does it absolve us from having just as much responsibility for what happens as the rest of our environment does in how it responds?
Quote:
So we evolved to homo sapiens because everything went well in the beginning? Perhaps a sudden lack of food or wild game, due to disease or natural disaster, gave rise to the need of a better brain? If everything went well, wouldn't we be dumb, weak, and happy?
Clearly things went well enough for us to be capable of evolving in the manner in which we have. Clearly there have been a lot of adverse conditions that we've had to confront over time as well, but I definitely wouldn't consider "things going horribly wrong" as being the essence of our very existence. We're talking about an interplay between us and our environment that is responsible for our evolution, not us manifesting our evolution with nothing but the brunt force of our own power in the face of everything going horribly wrong, an unrelenting environment. It's a question of a delicate and constant interaction that happened to be very fortunate for our advancement.
Quote:
We like pigs, cows, chickens, and dogs because they bring us some sort of satisfaction. Had not loved these species so much, they would have suffered from our pollution too.
I think all of these animals have indeed suffered as result of their relationship with humans, but the concepts of mutualism and symbiosis aren't regarding simply domestication.
You were suggesting that the consequences of a particular species' existence naturally inhibits another species' development. I referenced mutualism and symbiosis as prime examples that your assertion doesn't really ring true, that there are innumerable examples of complex relationships amongst organisms that are mutually beneficial. Life begets life much more than it inhibits it.
Quote:
I like this one. We know its coming don't we? But you're referring to the possibility that it may suddenly explode. But basically, you're asking if the sun should feel bad for causing us harm. It would be ridiculous to assume that the sun has feelings, and if it did, would it feel atonement? No, its just what the sun does, right?
No, I'm suggesting that there are any given number of changes that can present themselves in an environment at any moment that, due to the biological limitations of being a life-form, would be too much of a barrier for any given species to adapt to, and that failure to adapt doesn't mean that the particular species is to blame for their inadaptation. I'm debunking your notion that any particular adaptation to any particular change is theoretically possible and that any subsequent failure is the responsibility of the species that didn't adapt.
Quote:
Also, your bear argument may be out of the realm of this question of morality. Is the shooter killing the bear for fun, or for food? If for fun, then the answer is fairly obvious. But for food...
Again, the mentioning of the bear wasn't about how one should feel morally about the situation. It was a demonstration that, as not all changes in an environment can even be possibly adapted to by a particular organism, the argument that "it was their fault they failed to adapt, so why should I feel bad for them" has no footing.
I'm not suggesting in any way whether or not you should feel empathy for those who suffer on the account of your actions or those of humans in general. I am suggesting, however, that justifying not feeling morally responsible in this regard by suggesting that it was their fault they didn't adapt is not a reasonable position to hold.
--------------------
 
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
  
 
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Zoboomafoo 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
kaiowas
RebelSteve33
Swami
Gomp
Anonymous
HarveyWalbanger
daimyo