and I saw your stupidity; I'm a believer
Imagine if your peers were sitting next to you debating the philosophy of animal cruelty vs animal rights as their very physical forms became visual paradigms of academic failure. In an age where we claim to learn from our past, we are but ants embracing our behavioralist genetic memory. How can we in fact learn a lesson if the core of our beliefs lie engrossed within moral absolutism?
It began with the question of whether or not concededly sentient and highly intelligent whales should be hunted for food. The object was to establish whether a line should be drawn across species or within them where Human rights can be assigned. My peers, my liberal open-minded utilitarian peers, sought to wield the broad sword of science in the name of animal rights. Speciesism could be clearly seen as anthropocentric chauvinism waltzing with discrimination. These Philosophers, Economists, Biologists, and Undecideds hand animals the right to live and freedom from nature under the guise of equality born from moral absolutism. Decisively and quickly, we found Japan's and Norway's demand for cultural autonomy from our moral imperialism to be null and void in the face of distribution of rights. And so, I asked this question in response to experimentation on animals:
Well, isn't it true that we operate under a MO where our actions are in fact morally reprehensible yet still permissible?
No, we have and always will operate under the best of moral guidelines.
All of our actions are always supported by both science and morals.
We give aid to Blacks in Africa where they would have none.
The question of testing vaccines and chemicals on animals was raised once more. Africa and AIDS was raised as well.
Five seniors sat next to me and proceeded to explain how placebo tests and dual-information theory justifies lying to an entire population of Blacks infected with HIV. You can give them medication designed to limit transmission. Yet, this medication comes with a price. For it is morally acceptable to gather a group of Africans and give only 1/4 of them the medication and the rest a placebo in order to graph AIDS prevalence and distribution. They, IN FACT, were volunteers and would never have gotten ANY medication to begin with. Once all of the proper data is gathered, we can safely leave with the future of AIDS written into our notebooks. Knowledge needs no explanation; just as long as they said 'okay' then they too need no explanation. Hope that they will be one of the lucky ones is their explanation.
International Regulations state any firm can perform medical/drug tests on a population so long as they aknowledge and distribute the standard form of care common in test country. No one here in the United States of America would subject themselves to radical drug testing of any kind without full disclosure. As a result, firms crawl their way to countries dying of disease and wave the flag of peace laced in promises. This is our moral absolute; it is just if we can find a cure.
Nazi Medical Professionals who performed varied horrific tests on Jews are upheld by the moral premise of proper procedure. Human life merely wasted for the profit of scientific procedure, a process called morally right if carried out in a respectable fashion. Respect, in this case, comes from the end; what if they found a cure? In the name of Science...
FDA regulations are too strict here in the states.
We help Black people in Africa, without us they would be dead.
It is all to find a cure. It is better to lose a few and save millions.
They laugh at me for stating it is wrong to hide the truth. Everyone knows the truth; it is for their own good. Moral absolutism is inherited; we are fucking ants. In the name of science they say. We are at the age where everyone can be fed by soy bean crop, leaving animals free from slaughter. What we knew in our bones three centuries ago is still the same today with the exception we can finally carry it out.
Moral absolutism barks how the end never justifies the means yet supports any lifestyle's means as justifiable. This justification is soaked in the blood of those we sacrifice to improve the lives of those privileged.
Then it struck me, science is a religion. No fact exists, no procedure flawless, and certainly we worship a false God of truth upheld by moral transitivity. Our academic education is the cultivation of old behavior riddled in worship of religious deities. In the name of God, it was once said. Today, our lips repeat in the name of Science. If human lives are harmed in the process, we will fix the problem by stopping or rethinking our action and then pursuing a more just cause. The concept of rethinking the cause, the moral absolute, is never considered. After the fact moral absolutism guides our actions and so our ideology becomes our policy. Science has fallen prey to this form of dementia. Science is a tool. It justifies nothing and commands no moral high ground. It exists to give the sentient the capacity to internalize anything. The most powerful tool in the world lays in our hands and we are too worried about money and politics to use it. Internalization of the AIDS epidemic, the effectiveness of pills, and money towards its study would require just that, money and time. There is no need, merely a fulfillment of behavior.
Evolution is a fact and yet for the sake of argument, I now stand firmly against it. The Bible was written on paper but God cannot be proven by such a fact. Science was written by evolution; science is still a religion. It all boils down to the United States teaching its citizens moral absolutism upheld by religion and science. The broad sword is used not for protection but to defend another weapon. Stephen King was right in his assessment of science. Science will be the downfall of man, not because it is evil but due to man's unwillingness to understand it. The result of such a course of action is making null and void scientific facts. Evolution will be a theory if we fail to understand why science evolved.
Lastly, using science and impeccable logic to justify action and reason is replacing God with Science. Blind faith in logic is as flawed as blind faith in any religion. It is a tool created by the hands of man in order to better understand the world around him. Sadly, we believe it to be the truth of the world around us. How can we understand the world around us if we are incapable if internalizing it?