The "necessary for civilization" argument

[Bodhi]

Ok, so the post about animal experimentation got me thinking, but mostly because of the myopic majority of replies.

The civilization argument says that human practice X was (or is) necessary for the advancement of culture, technology or human life. Aristotle argued that slavery was justified because it was an economic necessity. Today we say it's an economic necessity that some people be born poor and some born rich. Some suggest that animal testing falls somewhere on the same continuum.

Now, I can't prove that any of the above positions are false. What I do have a problem with is when people say that because we could not have arrived at where we are today without human practice X, human practice X is therefore OK and anyone who doesn't like it is a soft little wimp (who obviously would've been rooted out by natural selection in the cold, cruel world that would exist today without the offending human practice X).

The excluded alternative is that human practice X was necessary for acheiving civilization as we know it, but we no longer need it today and we've found good reason to call it morally reprehensible. I think a lot of human history falls into this category. There's nothing decadent, illogical or hand-wringing about the observation that a human practice has reached this point of obsolescence.

Btw, I do think a lot of animal experimentation is morally wrong, but maybe not all of it. I'm not an expert on the topic, obviously, but primate experimentation is an abomination, imho.