Gould writes about how nature is nonmoral therefore it cannot teach any type of ethical theory at all. Some of the main points he stresses is that animals cannot feel as humans because they do not have the same mental capacity as men. We as humans try to inflict our feelings and emotions or beliefs onto animals. For example, some acts which animals commit we see as evil but Gould says there is no evil in nature we just perceive such acts as evil. Nature is nature we should not view our morals and beliefs in nature. Gould does a good job at explaining how the theologian view of God creating everything in nature is fine but the idea that nature is moral is wrong.
I found Gould’s piece very interesting. I don’t believe that animals can feel as we do or realize certain actions they make are wrong or evil. Evil, goodness, badness, and feelings like that cannot be found in nature. Of course as humans we see certain actions as immoral because in our eyes it is wrong. Animals may feel as we do but it is not the same at all. They may suffer in pain from a broken leg other problems but we do not know what they feel for sure. Another idea, is that animals killing one another is evil and how could God let such a thing happen. I see it as survival of the fittest. Certain things must happen in nature for nature to continue to grow and for us humans to continue to grow as well. If nature did not take its course who knows what the world would be like. We could be very over populated. However, if we see nature as immoral and animals have no feelings we run into the problem of how unjust or cruel animal testing can be or killing animals for food and fur. I think that, killing animals for food is just life’s course. It has to happen in order for us to grow as a whole. As for killing an animal strictly for its fur and such I see that as a luxury and rather cruel but once again that is my own opinion or belief. And I view animal testing as, if it is going to save human life so be it, just don’t be extremely cruel to the animal in the process. It kind of can relate to Darwin’s natural selection. Just let life takes it course and don’t prevent what is meant to happen in nature. As humans we see nature having a certain role so be it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with you and Gould that nature is nonmoral and should not be judged in the same way that humans are judged. I think though that the actions of humans towards animals should not be judged in the same way. We are a higher being capable of higher thinking and moral reasoning. We are able to weigh the costs of our actions towards other creatures. We need to seek to do the ethical thing, and avoid being cruel to any undue degree.
I believe that considering the nonmoral nature of the natural world in no way functions as an excuse to do whatever we want to animals. Whether or not animals have higher reasoning, they can still feel pain. They also can still fear and feel attachment towards something. To cause animals undue suffering is cruel, so we need to weigh what is gained from their suffering. To simply inflict suffering for its own sake is unthinkable, and should be avoided.
I agree with you that we should let nature take its course, but the question I have is how far does nature reach? We speak as if humans have reached some level that transcends the rules of nature, and that animals and plants live in some other alternate dimension. Survival of the fittest is easy to see in nature, the strong lion kills the weak zebra, and everybody knows why. But just because humans have evolved and become intelligent creatures doesn’t mean we aren’t susceptible to nature’s guiding hand. Survival of the fittest is the same as it’s always been; we just call it Social Darwinism, or imperialism. One can look at the golden age of any country, including America, and see how it has taken land and killed people simply because it wanted more land or wealth. A moral mask has been put on these actions in more modern instances, but they’re not. The great conquerors of the world such as Alexander the Great, the Khans, and even Julius Caesar went on massive military missions almost exclusively because they had the power to do so.
One could also look at capitalism as an example of nature’s values shining through. Humans define their entire existence on a survival of the fittest attitude and it shows in our economic system that we feel is the best available. Our system basically says that if you are strong you will rise above the weak and have control over them. The best we can hope for is a large middle class, and the notion of a middle class hasn’t even existed for very long. There used to be only an upper and a lower class. The upper would work together and fight each other, and the lower class would work for the upper class. We can see this same thing today with big corporations affecting the mind and the lifestyle of the average citizen.
It is highly unlikely that humans are the highest form of intelligence in the universe, and if aliens were observing our planet they may look at us as we look at dogs: Rational in a naturalistic sense but therefore completely nonmoral.
Post a Comment