Humanity should respect animals.

[Monica]

How about a teleological approach? This might begin by asking: What is the purpose of Life?

The purpose of Life is to express itself in physical form. This much is self-evident. Life probably has many other purposes- and some of them even ethical- but the one thing we have empirical evidence for- something we can stand upon as evidence- is that the purpose of life is to express itself in physical form.

I'd have to disagree with your premise.

I'd say the function of life is to express itself in physical form, but that isn't its purpose. Its purpose is to evolve spiritually.

Although, biodynamic farms do require animals to function.

I found a book about people succeeding in farming without animals. They claim to be successful. Their project has spanned 10 years so far, if I remember correctly. I haven't read it yet though. It was kinda over my head, since I'm just a backyard gardener.

We should do whatever is necessary to enable Life to maximally express itself in physical form.

I disagree again. Physical form isn't the end-all. I'd say we should do whatever is necessary to most fully express our highest spiritual principles.

Preservation of form (nurture/defense) is a function of life along with creation of form (reproduction) and destruction of form (death).

Therefore, a humanity in alignment with the purpose of Life would seek to act to create catalyst for these three functions of Life.

I strongly disagree. It is the function of STS to create catalyst. Not our function.

And from this, we would conclude that it is not appropriate for humanity to elevate one of these functions- preservation of form- over the others. To do this would create an imbalance in the system. In many ways, it already has.

By that logic, then why ever try to save anyone's life? Why not just look the other way if we witness an impending murder?

So when I envision a 4D society, what I also see is that humanity has accepted full responsibility as stewards for Life on Earth.

But a steward is more than a protector. A steward must also wield the power to destroy forms where it is found their perpetuation inhibits the maximal expression of Life.

You seem to be saying, on the one hand, that one species shouldn't be elevated over another, but on the other, saying that humans should have stewardship over all other lifeforms. Or did you mean that it's ok for humans to elevate themselves over other lifeforms, but shouldn't ever elevate any animals over other animals or plants?

Why would it be ok for humans to elevate themselves, but not ok to elevate say, a dog, over a lizard? Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, but your logic doesn't seem consistent to me.

I don't have any ideas for a philosophy that works in all instances, other than the general philosophy of compassion, since that is, after all, what we're supposed to be learning here in 3D, and, in my understanding, the actual purpose of 3D to begin with.