If you arrived here by way of one of Jeff's links, please start by reading the preceding paragraph. If this is your first visit to this blog, please click the Older Posts link at the bottom of the page to read the opening stanzas. If you have read yesterday's post, please start at the beginning of this paragraph. I am well aware that these directions do not cover every possible scenario and are not mutually exclusive. They should be taken as guidelines rather than instructions. If you have yet to find a place to start, please proceed to the oldest posting that you do not remember reading. This paragraph is meant to address Noemi's concerns about its counterpart in yesterday's posting. It is not meant to reduce the confusion level among its readers or its writer.
With that out of the way, here is today's smidgen of verse:
Would it be right to throw a little spark
onto the pyre? Would they be justified?
Would it be worth some centuries of dark,
a hidden candle’s shelter to provide?
That they would even think of such an act
reminds us of the power of a thought.
It struggles for existence when attacked.
That’s animal behavior, I was taught.
Now, don’t infer a lack of self-control.
They know the cost and what they can afford.
Like you and me, they calculate the toll.
Like us, they measure risk and seek reward.
For all incentive systems to perform,
we need something to want or to eschew.
With critters, pain and pleasure are the norm.
As humans, we have moral values, too.
©2010 Louis A. Merrimac
I'm less confused now, thanks Lou.
ReplyDeleteI was going to say 'monkeys' would be a better word than 'critters', which is awfully close to dialect, but studies are showing that monkeys have moral values as well, so that wouldn't work. You could use 'animals' & not ruin the meter.
ReplyDelete