The balance of nature vs ethics: Philosophy Forums

The balance of nature vs ethics
The innocents of nature vs humanities creation, ethics.

The balance of nature vs ethics

Cjwalker
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2008
Location: New Hampshire
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/01/08 - 05:23 PM: Subject: The balance of nature vs ethics	#1
If humans didn't exist, in my eyes any type of logic or ethics would seize to exists as well. Only the balance of life and death, and nature would exist. If a wolf kills a rabbit for survival is is not considered OK, after all its just the balance of nature? But what if a human kills another human in that same fight for survival, does that killing consider itself to be ethical as well? What if the wolf was aware that killing should be avoided, would it be considered unethical then? I have my own opinions, just would like to see yours...
“I have reached inner tranquility now that I have developed introversion within myself. No matter were I end up in life, and no matter what the circumstance of my confine, I will always have an infinite mind to look upon for my own amusement”. --Me

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 315

Posted 05/06/08 - 11:45 AM:	#2
All I have to say is that you can avoid the contradictions here by looking at a system of ethics which is based upon self-interest and survival as the highest moral good. Your mistake here is believing that altruism or duty-based ethics are the only acceptable type of morality. But a morality based upon self-interest and what determining ought is completely consistent, equally applicable to the wolf and the man. Take a look at a short series of essays called The Virtue of Selfishness.
The Promethean Movement http://www.promethea.org

Cjwalker
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2008
Location: New Hampshire
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/06/08 - 04:47 PM:	#3
Thanks for the suggestion, I will surly look into The Virtue of Selfishness. I am new to Philosophy and I haven't read any literature in the past except for a current book, that I am reading, called Essential Philosophy. I am now starting to realize, through your constructive criticism, that I have become to eager to post any random thought that comes to mind without thinking it over first, and without knowing the true nature of the subject(being new to all this). For now I will read into the forum discussions more deeply, and develop a better understanding of everything before I eagerly throw my somewhat undeveloped thoughts out there. Respectfully, Cjwalker
“I have reached inner tranquility now that I have developed introversion within myself. No matter were I end up in life, and no matter what the circumstance of my confine, I will always have an infinite mind to look upon for my own amusement”. --Me

Inthedark
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 25, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 05/12/08 - 10:54 AM:	#4
Don't feel like you have to silence yourself. It's a good thing that you are eager! Philosophy is all about debate so it is only natural people will constructively criticise your ideas. It might be that you will change your ideas becuase of the criticism but equally well that person maybe wrong and you may be able clarify your idea further. The important thing is to try! So do take part in discussions! If you feel you may need to think things through a little bit more then do that but don't stop posting! You will pick up terminology and techniques from posting and replying as well as reading and it can be quite good to get an untrained perspective. It took me two years to pluck up the courage to post and I would hate to see someone who has already started discussions to stop just because they think they need more experience.

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/12/08 - 02:45 PM:	#5
I see no reason why Ethics involves anything that isn't as sentient (or possibly more sentient) than humans. If so, what wolves and rabits do is inherently ammoral. Only what humans do that involves other humans in some meaningful way is important.

You don't have permission to post.