Where exactly does humankind reside in the natural hierarchy? If, as the materialist would assert, we are merely a hairless ape with no more importance or than an amoeba in the greater scheme of things, how can our impact on nature, on the environment, for better or worse, be given an ethical value when that of other natural phenomena is not? Is a volcano evil when it spews ‘toxic‘ gases into the atmosphere? Does the beaver wrongly exploit the environment when it fells trees and builds dams? I have cats for pets and have observed them stalking, catching, and then toying with chipmunks that they found in the backyard. Are they cruel or are they acting in accordance with their nature? How is the drilling for oil in the ANWR wrong? How can an oil spill be `wrong‘? How can the deforestation of a rain forest be condemned? All the aforementioned are natural results of a natural action by a natural entity.
What can truly be defined as ‘unnatural‘? How can one, for all intents and purposes, deify nature and then place humanity outside of nature? The point is this: Unless nature is the effect of a transcendental cause and humanity occupies a position of ascendancy over nature, one cannot coherently and rationally make moral judgments concerning humanity’s stewardship and impact on nature. Indeed, how can one derive any moral imperatives from a naturalist framework? The foundation is so plastic, so pliable, that any act can be justified within the confines of natural selection.
Think on this: Zoology Professor Pianka of the University of Texas advocates the elimination of ninety percent of the human population, perhaps by Ebola, in order to preserve sustainability. He has received accolades for his ideas.
At the most basic level the issue is that mankind seems to be the only species on Earth that will outstrip its environment. Whereas other species cannot do so – their populations are self limiting – we do so.
Hello again jonolan!
First, sorry about the loss of your comment when I inadvertently deleted the post on my other blog. I also lost my reply to your comment. (As an addendum, I later recovered the post and recomposed my rely) You are quite correct that we, as a species, can outstrip our environment. Within my world view, I can assert that such is absolutely wrong. From the perspective of a materialist, one who believes that there is nothing beyond the material world, one cannot coherently pass a moral judgment. All our ethical decisions will be, at best, utilitarian in nature. All we are, within a naturalistic world view, is a fortuitous concourse of atoms.
Best regards,
Ron
I like the comment by Ron White the commedian. He said, he didn’t spend those millions of year working his way to the top of the food chain to eat carrots.
LOL! As long as the right decisions are made, I don’t care what the moral or philosophical rationale was.
I think a distinction must be made though: Morality requires a faith-based system, but the ethics do not. Whether secular humanist or religious, a person can arrive at much the same functional ethical code.
Let us cut to the chase: if there is no God, everything is permissible. Only can God imbue humanity with intrinsic value; in a materialistic world view, our value is, at best, utilitarian.
If matter is all that exists, we are merely puppets of meat whose consciousness is snuffed out like a candle when we die. To assert otherwise is merely hollow romanticism, a defense mechanism to protect our fragile psyche from the reality of our mortality. Ethic and morals, keep them. If there is no God, then I will seek after the satisfaction of my senses. In the end, if there is no transcendental, personal God who will reach down in grace, then the best the universe has to offer is nihilism.