My wife and I are currently watching two British nature documentary series, "The Blue Planet" and "Planet Earth", both narrated by David Attenborough
( Read more... )
Why save the baby penguin and not a baby whale being slowly drowned by killer whales? I don't see the distinction. Is it because one is cuter than the other?[2] That was one of the major questions that we would regularly attempt to tackle in my Env. Theologies class one term. It is def. not one with an easy answer, even when applied to the distinction between, say, a polar bear and some ugly and annoying insect. Who are we to say which is more valuable overall to the ecosystem? I think it really comes down to the question of whether humanity is really equipped to make the sorts of decisions that are ultimately up to nature itself. It gets complicated, however, when the actions of humanity begin to interfere with nature's natural process. So circular...
That is interesting. I assume that it's not a cruelty thing when animals kill, because they are acting on instinct. I see moral judgement as something that only humans have. And I distinguish between a human killing an animal to eat it and a human killing an animal for sport. But I guess the sport thing is an instinct too, as animals do it. I suppose I see the difference as being that the human has a higher consciousness from which s/he can stand back and observe and make a moral judgement.
I suppose too that it's easier to save a trapped penguin than a shark being attacked by sharks - because if you interfere with the sharks you might get attacked yourself. I'm sure the self-protective instinct must come into play. Sort of like how if someone was being attacked by a gang with knives, passers-by would just pass by rapidly rather than intervene. But if they saw some little kid crying because he had fallen over and hurt his knee and couldn't find his mum, they would help him.
Why save the baby penguin and not a baby whale being slowly drowned by killer whales? I don't see the distinction. Is it because one is cuter than the other?[2]
A logical answer for this action would be that helping the baby whale would harm (in that it would deprive them of a meal) the killer whales. However, they were obviously not following this logic in the example of the "poor bat-dung-trapped bird".
Comments 3
That was one of the major questions that we would regularly attempt to tackle in my Env. Theologies class one term. It is def. not one with an easy answer, even when applied to the distinction between, say, a polar bear and some ugly and annoying insect. Who are we to say which is more valuable overall to the ecosystem? I think it really comes down to the question of whether humanity is really equipped to make the sorts of decisions that are ultimately up to nature itself. It gets complicated, however, when the actions of humanity begin to interfere with nature's natural process. So circular...
Reply
I suppose too that it's easier to save a trapped penguin than a shark being attacked by sharks - because if you interfere with the sharks you might get attacked yourself. I'm sure the self-protective instinct must come into play. Sort of like how if someone was being attacked by a gang with knives, passers-by would just pass by rapidly rather than intervene. But if they saw some little kid crying because he had fallen over and hurt his knee and couldn't find his mum, they would help him.
Reply
Why save the baby penguin and not a baby whale being slowly drowned by killer whales? I don't see the distinction. Is it because one is cuter than the other?[2]
A logical answer for this action would be that helping the baby whale would harm (in that it would deprive them of a meal) the killer whales. However, they were obviously not following this logic in the example of the "poor bat-dung-trapped bird".
Reply
Leave a comment