Originally posted by rwingettCorrect. What possible basis is there for take an alternative position?
So everything on the face of the earth exists for the sole purpose of satisfying human desires? Nothing has any value to it except for how it can be manipulated toward our own purposes?
Now, I do think that it is morally proper to prevent animal suffering. But I don't equate the interests of animals (and certainly not those of trees and rocks) with those of human beings.
Let me ask you something: If you could pay $5,000 to prevent the eradication of 37 galaxies with 4 trillion stars that are 8 billion light years from us, would you do so?
Originally posted by rwingettNo, but the concept of value is not absolute. It requires an observer, e.g. this is of value to whom?
So everything on the face of the earth exists for the sole purpose of satisfying human desires? Nothing has any value to it except for how it can be manipulated toward our own purposes?
sh76 is saying the only relevant observer to him is humanity (I'm extending sh76 and his family to include the rest of us; hopefully he doesn't mind).