Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 1058459" data-attributes="member: 4720">No, it's only pragmatic from a limited point of view, i.e. that of the humans living in the forest.&nbsp; The firefighters (and the people who have chosen to live in the middle of the are interfering in a natural process which is inherently good for the environment (which the ecosystem has evolved to incorporate and is, in fact, a *requirement* of the life cycle of the forest), if not so good for the humans who chose to live there.&nbsp; How do you justify letting an entire ecosystem collapse because a handful of humans are convinced they should be allowed to live in a forest?As for the rest, I do not at all believe in the ends justifying the means when you are dealing with humanocentric issues like the clutch of baby kobolds (kobolds being, like eleves, dwarves, and what not, fundamentally interchageable with humans).&nbsp; However, there are many situations where this kind of morality seems to break down, particularly when dealing with any kind of out-group, whether they be other groups of humans, or other living things entirely.I'd qualify a sustainable environment so that our species and others will still be here in a few hundred years an ideal situation we should be striving towards. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost, post: 1058459, member: 4720"] No, it's only pragmatic from a limited point of view, i.e. that of the humans living in the forest. The firefighters (and the people who have chosen to live in the middle of the are interfering in a natural process which is inherently good for the environment (which the ecosystem has evolved to incorporate and is, in fact, a *requirement* of the life cycle of the forest), if not so good for the humans who chose to live there. How do you justify letting an entire ecosystem collapse because a handful of humans are convinced they should be allowed to live in a forest? As for the rest, I do not at all believe in the ends justifying the means when you are dealing with humanocentric issues like the clutch of baby kobolds (kobolds being, like eleves, dwarves, and what not, fundamentally interchageable with humans). However, there are many situations where this kind of morality seems to break down, particularly when dealing with any kind of out-group, whether they be other groups of humans, or other living things entirely. I'd qualify a sustainable environment so that our species and others will still be here in a few hundred years an ideal situation we should be striving towards. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification