Enteebee said:
Obviously morals in the end are equal to each other but I think we need to think about why we hold our moral stance i.e. Why do we value life at all? Why not value non-life (or plant life)?
Well, I suppose that if we did not value life at all we couldn't value ourselves. And I think we do value non-life - we glory at the stars, the moon, a waterfall, and I think there would be a lot of objection to someone destroying Ayer's Rock.
Why would you value humans more when it really comes down to it (although having no intellectual argument as to why). The reason, I'd argue, is because naturally our species has evolved to feel empathy for one another, for the most part empathy for other animals (other than perhaps a few... dogs per say) would have no evolutionary advantage and may in fact be a disadvantage. It is at the core of human being that we value other human lives (unless we're a sociopath) quite a bit.
I would agree with that - in fact that's probably the only valid explanation. The fact that we
can impart empathy and altruism on another species (indeed, species that would have been our direct competitors in the dim dark past, to use your example of
Canis lupus familiaris), and do, is important, I think.
I guess I take a homo-centric perspective on morality (it is after all a human construct). Morals are a human thing, any moral which is repugnant to humanity imo is a repugnant moral.
Having greater might gives you the right to do whatever you want, it doesn't mean you should do it. You can very well be a benevolent power.
So essentially you agree with me?
Without the 'ethics and morality bullshit' what sort of a world will we be saving?
And that, my friend, is what I think we're in danger of losing.