Is nature immoral for actualizing animals to eat each other for survival?
To be honest, I feel carnivory is an absolutely unnecessary abomination found predominantly the animal kingdom.
Keep in mind the animal kingdom is the only kingdom to spring forth conscious creatures that are able to feel pain. Carnivorous plants and fungi couldn't be included as violating this proposed ethical code as consciousness is a requirement for feeling pain and feeling pain is a requirement for unethical or immoral treatment among many other things such as intentional shaming, violation of another's will, etc.
We all know moral principles are merely subjective notations of what is considered "good" or "bad". We also know that nature is not an "entity" to which we can lay blame but a series of manifestations of physical matter that supposedly arose by an unintelligent "fluke" of which, like intelligent design, can not be proven yet still is the current accepted model.
Now I know some of you will agree that you can blame physical process for unethical behaviour as you need an agent of will to cause injustice and lay blame to but I think it is fair enough to say that physical process can be immoral in the outcomes or effects of their processes on to conscious creatures even if those physical processes do not have a will of their own. For instance, if an oil rig explodes and the oil harms or kills conscious marine lifeforms in the area then you could say that what occurred is violating to the marine lifeforms even if the accident occurred by natural causes and not human error. However blaming your chainsaw for "accidentally" chopping off your arm is completely foolish and another matter entirely.
So given these truths, can we say that nature (the physical processes of matter not as an entity but as a process or thing in itself) is immoral (given our accepted moral structure that we choose to set laws upon, I.E. do unto others as you would do unto yourself). Rationally, the answer to this question is yes. Yet most of you are still filthy meat eaters aren't you? Despicable moral agents! You think your tacit assumptions are justified? Ha! Shame on you!
Keep in mind the animal kingdom is the only kingdom to spring forth conscious creatures that are able to feel pain. Carnivorous plants and fungi couldn't be included as violating this proposed ethical code as consciousness is a requirement for feeling pain and feeling pain is a requirement for unethical or immoral treatment among many other things such as intentional shaming, violation of another's will, etc.
We all know moral principles are merely subjective notations of what is considered "good" or "bad". We also know that nature is not an "entity" to which we can lay blame but a series of manifestations of physical matter that supposedly arose by an unintelligent "fluke" of which, like intelligent design, can not be proven yet still is the current accepted model.
Now I know some of you will agree that you can blame physical process for unethical behaviour as you need an agent of will to cause injustice and lay blame to but I think it is fair enough to say that physical process can be immoral in the outcomes or effects of their processes on to conscious creatures even if those physical processes do not have a will of their own. For instance, if an oil rig explodes and the oil harms or kills conscious marine lifeforms in the area then you could say that what occurred is violating to the marine lifeforms even if the accident occurred by natural causes and not human error. However blaming your chainsaw for "accidentally" chopping off your arm is completely foolish and another matter entirely.
So given these truths, can we say that nature (the physical processes of matter not as an entity but as a process or thing in itself) is immoral (given our accepted moral structure that we choose to set laws upon, I.E. do unto others as you would do unto yourself). Rationally, the answer to this question is yes. Yet most of you are still filthy meat eaters aren't you? Despicable moral agents! You think your tacit assumptions are justified? Ha! Shame on you!
Comments (15)
1. Morality is an exclusively human construct. I don't know what percent of all life humans represent but I surmise it's less than 1%. The rest (99%) haven't even thought of morality. If so are we justified in throwing the cloak of human morality over all of life?
2. As thinking animals we're gifted with self-awareness and rationality - very important and powerful tools with universal application. If these tools say that there's something wrong with carnivory (is this a real word?) we should do well to heed it.
1. No animal likes to feel pain, therefore they inherently agree with our morality by their actions to avoid pain. Our morality is simply pain = bad therefore don't inflict pain on others. Unfortunately animals don't have the capacity of consciousness to understand not to hurt others and all they want to do is eat other animals when they are hungry. Yet, the animals all agree implicitly (without needing to be stated) that they do not want to feel pain because we can observe it in their behaviour. I would say that that is adequate enough to account for 100% of life (excluding a few weirdos who like to be tied up and whipped for sexual pleasure) because all living things seek survival and our morality holds survival as well as healthy living in utmost recognition.
2. That is a bit harder to pin down because we have no indicators of how accurate self-awareness and rationality depict and remodel the "real" world if there even is one. Either way, it is irrelevant if we just want to make claims about the nature of life for ourselves without needing to be justified by an objective order of some kind (aka truth). So we can only say at the moment that it is subjectively true from a human perspective that "nature is immoral".
It is absurd to speak of nature being a moral subject.
That's the bottomline. Indeed animals avoid pain. A very basic instinct - perhaps forming the foundations of morality as we know it.
Quoting intrapersona
How about nature is ''amoral'' instead of ''immoral''?
The irony is that one has to first live before you can say ''life is an absolutely unnecessary abomination''
I would say that it is sad haha
YOUR PREMISE LACKS AND ADEQUATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
By 'adequate', I mean based on the vast amount of existing verified knowledge that we now have. Here is an adequate classification system, based on levels of intelligence:
Higher Consciousness: Currently, on earth, this is embodied in only humans, who have the capacity for extended reasoning, which is required for 'moral' judgements. This is the only level of consciousness capable of proactive action based on extended reason. The line is blurred between species, since there is a variety of extended reasoning capacities.
Mere Consciousness: This refers to multi-cellular animals that have a central processing capacity (a 'brain') with which to 'consider' (in a limited capacity) sensory inputs and to 'consider' reactionary responses. This consciousness is only capable of 'reactionary' action.
(remember, I am merely presenting a 'useful tool of perspective' with which to consider reality - whether or how much it actually reflects reality is besides the point - the key factor is its 'usefulness').
Non-Conscious Life: This includes vegetation and microbes (entities without central brains, which react chemically or locally (driven by internal microbes or local cellular reactions) to their surroundings).
Working from this classification system, then the answer is 'no' - nature is not immoral - since it does not have the extended reasoning to make moral judgements.
Now, just for the record, humans do not have the capacity to make clear moral judgements either, philosophy still being mired in a 'subjective' state, where every decision can be counter-argued. The best humans can currently do is 'live a good but clueless life', and being clueless, being 'good' is by blind chance, and still rendered uncertain (enter my new philosophical system, which I cannot present here - there being diagrams involved for ease of communication).
That was already covered in the OP, if you just cared to look... you could have responded to that specifically but I notice you have a tendency to not do that.
Thanks, I guess I ought to work on that.
Again I talked about why you don't need to be a reasoning being to be a moral system in my OP which a few on here seemed to miss. Let me repost it
Isn't there something you want to say besides dismissing my response? I disagree with your title suggestion that nature can be considered moral or immoral because "nature" isn't an agent of any kind.