Well, that's quite the cop out. Is it ethically neutral to watch a woman being gang-raped and do nothing about it? When it's your lack of action, rather than your action, that results in a horrible outcome, you are not automatically absolved. Of course, our responsibilities towards other humans are not the same thing as our responsibilities towards animals, but consider: the farm animals that would undergo genocidal losses have us to thank both for their numbers and for their relative helplessness without human symbiosis. The deer that would overgraze their territories and then suffer massive numbers of death in the readjustment have us to thank for eliminating their other natural predators, and for developing much of their grazing territory into human communities. We are well beyond the point of having no impact on the situation. Furthermore, you're assuming the situation of the deer exists in isolation from humans. What happens when deer descend from the overgrazed mountains to search for food in human neighborhoods? What happens after human children start getting injured or killed by desperately hungry deer? You're taking a very simplistic approach to the issues in your attempt to absolve us of responsibility unless we are actively killing animals.
Ajax
Bookmarks