I wonder, am I alone in being unsure of what I think on issues that raise passion in others? Take vivisection for example. I can write a poetic piece, comparing animal testing to animal sacrifice. But does my prose clarify anything for me. The superstitious systems sacrifice deals with were considered empirical enough by the practitioners of these acts. In cosmic terms, as an animal ourselves, and given how poor old science appears to us now, can we really say that the science vivisection serves, is of any greater consequence than old religions?
But even if I think animal testing is the same as animal sacrifice, the same act, different narrative, do I think it always wrong? For sure, we all benefit from the knowledge gleaned from subjecting animals to suffering. In some cases the environment benefits from animal tests, animals sometimes have benefited from other animals being tested. I recall two kittens i once had. When they first encountered the stairs, the smarter of the two pushed its sibling over the edge to see how it faired, before risking the steps himself.
But still it is hard to escape the fact that the humanist science has its roots in Christian separation. From our cultural history we retain the idea that we are the chosen creature, above animals. Even in our secular world we persist with this awful foundation point of the Christian outlook.
Whilst passionate on the point that we are animals, and as ignotant as all the others, I can't say I feel passionately either way on vivisection. For sure, in its worst excesses it repulsed me.
However. It often feels that society obliges we take sides. Learning to accept that we aren't sure is the final step of adulthood. And the strength to admit you are wrong and change ones views.
No comments:
Post a Comment