Skip to main content

Nature is immoral

There are some people who directly or indirectly worship evolution/nature as one would a God or a religion. But they are wrong in doing so. Evolution or Nature (which is a broader term to define the concept) is indeed a knowledge creation process but that doesn't mean that is is "right" or "moral". Just the fact that we are born out of Nature (through the process of evolution) does not make Nature itself some grand, god-like thing which is not to be questioned. In fact I am arguing to the contrary - I think a lot of Nature is in fact immoral. 

Morality is a field of philosophy as it applies to conscious beings, which includes us. It is a question of "what to do next". We do not have very good theories of morality yet (e.g. we do no have a theory of morality that is as good as quantum theory is for physics). Morality is distinct from the sciences and hence it is distinct from Nature/evolution. Nature does not, by default,  have the "right" morality built into it. It does have some morality since all knowledge creation requires some morality. But, like what I said earlier, I think it has a lot of immoral theories built into it.

One of the biggest reasons for this is that Nature has violence built into it, and along with that immense suffering. I have written about it in a previous post that every death of a human is a tragedy - and "Nature" is responsible for most of those deaths. It kills the conscious humans WITHOUT their approval - so that's coercion and violence. And coercion and violence are immoral (this also, obviously, can be questioned but we need certain axioms to build moral theories in the same manner we need certain axioms to build mathematics e.g. 1+1=2 is an axiom that can't be proven).

Nature/Evolution creates conscious beings, causes them to suffer during their lifetime and eventually kills them against their will (most of the times). That's immoral.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Should one be thankful since the “probability” that one exists is so low ?

  Should one be thankful since the “probability” that one exists is so low ? Not really - thinking of probability in these terms is meaningless when we don’t understand a lot of things - eg consciousness, qualia, creativity etc. It’s like buying a KitKat and asking what is the probability that this exact KitKat is in my hand right now out of the billions that have been manufactured and why KitKat and not katkit (ie why did they name it KitKat) etc. Such probabilities are meaningless. I understand where this line of thinking comes from - wanting people to appreciate life more given how “improbable” it is that we are here. But that’s not the reason to appreciate life in my opinion and this kind of reasoning - first of all is not useful and secondly doesn’t have much meaning as I said. There are reasons to appreciate life of course even though we don’t understand a lot of them yet (since philosophy, including moral philosophy hasn’t ma...

Old movies are better?

 Someone said some time back "I love older movies, they are so much better. They don't make movies like that anymore - older movies are so much better". I promptly pointed out this reasoning is mistaken. The fact is that there are a LOT more older movies than newer movies. Like a lot lot more. If you classify newer movies as movies released in the last 5 years, there are like perhaps a 100 times more movies made from the dawn of cinema till 5 years ago. So even if say only 5% of older movies are good as compared to 10% of newer movies (which is the other side of the preposition) even then there would be 50 times more "good" older movies then newer movies.