|
It might seem strange to you?
That you have an obligation of some sort to all living things?
Certainly those who feel
strongly about this, often members of some environmental protection group,
do recognize an obligation toward all life forms -- while else would our
nation have laws protecting the Spotted Owl, when those laws apparently do
damage to the economic well being of many humans -- for instance those in
the logging industry.
 Do
you recall the hue and cry over the "snail darter?"
This little fish seemed to have no great
value to society, but those who felt an obligation to THIS form of life
protected it and greatly increased its survival prospects -- even if that
did cost bales of money wasted on dams that were started and never finished
because their completion might have endangered this species!
When does this obligation
rise to the level of a moral duty?
Is it possible for people
to "exercise" their obligation in a way which is, on balance, more harmful
to all life forms than it is helpful?
These are moral choices,
often converted into laws. But, do not miss the point that they are,
initially, choices of moral decisions.
Under Construction
Last Edited:
May 20, 2008 6:25 AM
|
