Just thinking out loud (k, so "on keyboard")... Your question inevitably comes to the issue of priorities and of personal accountability to those priorities re

Just thinking out loud (k, so "on keyboard")... Your question inevitably comes to the issue of priorities and of personal accountability to those priorities regardless of moral influence. Personal case in point: My 4 year old daughter contracted Streptococcus Pneumoniae Meningitis; serotype 19a. An extremely antibiotic resistant disease with a mortality rate of 20% with 48 hours of initial contraction (most people dont begin to show symptoms until 12 to 24 hours after initial contraction basically leaving them with about 24 hours to live). Of those who survive 80% are left with mild to severe mental disability. Her life was saved and she made a full recovery with no disability at all. Even the doctors were shocked at how well she recovered. The antibiotic she was given is a synthetic drug that was developed in a lab and was allowed to go to human testing only after testing it on animals to determine it's safe dosage levels (some levels are considered corrosive and fatal). I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure many animals suffered and died during that particular phase of its development. Ergo, numerous animals suffered and died so that my daughter (and many others that needed that medication) could live and return to a normal life. I fully respect and understand someone's choice to not eat meat, even to go so far as to avoid animal based products. I don't believe animals should be made/allowed to suffer needlessly. However it seems to me that it comes to an issue of priorities (whether influenced by morals or not). In this case I find it morally wrong to make animals suffer, however my daughter's health is a much higher priority. Therefore, if an animal must suffer and die in order for my daughter live then so be it. The priority overrules the moral. To anyone who would maintain that a conscious animal holds the same intrinsic and/or perceived value as a human I would simply ask this: would you allow someone you love to die so that you could prevent the suffering of an animal, or at the very least, not be a benefactor from the suffering of an animal? Another, friendly way of putting it could be this: What are your priorities, not morals, regarding animal testing vs. human benefit and how influential are your morals when it comes to the establishment of those priorities? While I used the issue of animal testing the basic logic can be applied to any area of your questioning. Example: I find it immoral to kill people. Those I know and love are a higher priority than those I do not. Someone wishes to harm those I know and love. If needed I will end the life of someone I dont know to protect the life of someone I do know even though my morals say to not kill. My predetermined priority (keep those I love safe at all cost) overrules my moral inclination (do not kill). But this brings us to the core problem with societies of any size and as a whole: What if the person who wished to do harm instead did what is moral because they made the choice to set their priorities according to a moral standard and hold themselves personally accountable to those priorities? Then I would not have my priorities overrule my morals because there would be no need; the example above would not have taken place. You say it seems impossible to do what is moral but you're viewing morality at a level that you have no control over. If you focus on making your priorities line up with a moral standard and have personal accountability to those priorities then you will begin to see that, while you cant save the whole world, you can at least save a small part of it, yourself included. Now imagine if everyone focused on making their priorities line up with a moral standard and saving their own small part of the world. Therein lies the strength and ability to save the world from itself. Unfortunately the choice to hold to priorities that don't compromise (at least most) moral standards is a choice that society can only make as a whole. ie. you decide you don't want to blow me up anymore; I can now follow my moral of "do not kill" without it being overruled by my priority of "dont get blown up". True this doesn't help with the original example of animal testing to develop cures that save human lives, but if you find a way to instill moral standards in bacteria I will gladly nominate you for as many science awards as I can. -FE