People with the capacity to utilize their technologies to influence and control the planet so broadly and intensely are faced with moral choices. Contemporary life isn’t an issue of mere survival because it had been when we were at the wild. It’s a chance to develop and grow introspective, sensitive, and moral individuals.
Residing in the wild would introduce several ethical choices. However, an innovative society with almost limitless technical skills is another issue. Our skill now to virtually crate and restrain each creature on Earth and nearly destroy the planet’s life-supporting surroundings in an Earth-wide scale necessitates choices and moral responsibility.
What are the Options
The first option to be created, it would appear, is if we wish to endure long duration or not. Assuming the response is yes, we have to take fiduciary duty for the entire world and its web of existence. However, it doesn’t end there, as some humanist and green moves would appear to argue. To be able to survive we have to also take the lifestyles of this animal and plant food we eat.
Killing creatures or plants for pleasure or simply because we have the capability to do this is neither logical nor moral. It’s a type of psychopathic behaviour that threatens the net of life where we rely and desensitizes us to the worthiness of life.
Individuals who enjoy the pain, anguish, and death of other animals, or justify it for bucks to be produced, sabotage civilization. It isn’t so great a jump for people who act in such a way to expand similar insensitivity to individuals.
Can we rather live next door to somebody who produces habitat for wild animals in their lawn and live-captures home mice to place them free outside, or somebody who stomps on almost any insect they visit, chains their puppy to a bet in the lawn, yahoos about shooting songbirds in their own window with a pellet gun, and searches for decorations leaving carcasses to rot?
Experiments
Creatures like pets increased for food shouldn’t be treated as nothing more than manufacturing components, restricted in order never to find the light of day, then be treated and slaughtered inhumanely. Arguably hunting ought to be earmarked for the singular goal of getting food, not to the joy of killing.
But such heartless experimentation continues from the name of science along with the promise of remedies. It is a shame. Employing just a tiny logic, or other lab resources like tissue culture methods, could also have resulted in precisely the very same conclusions obtained from animal experimentation.
