Aye....I'd rather that population control be intentional than catastrophic.I'm less worried about extinct than I am general depopulation (by not great means).
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Aye....I'd rather that population control be intentional than catastrophic.I'm less worried about extinct than I am general depopulation (by not great means).
I don't consider totalitarianism evil; I don't believe in good and evil.
The question to me boils down to whether or not I value the present state of biodiversity over future biodiversity (because there will be a new flowering of biodiversity millions of years down the road as a result of the human-induced sixth mass extinction).
The answer is yes. And I have no words to express how much it sickens me that my species is responsible for a sixth mass extinction. For the flourishing of the non-human world, there are no measures I would stand against.
For a moral nihilist, you sure seem to be morally outraged about this.
You'd be wrong, but if you say so.
My sense of ethics is not grounded in morality (aka, right vs. wrong, good vs. evil), it's grounded in virtue (aka, personal character, values, and honor). Given how much my culture is entrenched in approaching ethics from systems of morality, it is not uncommon for people to misunderstand or conflate my approach with morality.
I don't wish to misconstrue your methods and have just been curious after reading some of your posts. I'd like to learn more about the nuances if you don't mind a few more inquiries.
Do you differentiate between the quality of characters and values? Is it right to develop a rich character? Is it right to value biodiversity and the flourishing of life? Is it wrong to value extinction?
Not at all. I appreciate the courtesy, though I'm not sure a nuanced discussion of this really belongs in this thread.
If by "differentiate between quality" you mean I understand that different characters and values have different natures, then yes. If by "differentiate between quality" you mean calling some set of values ultimately "better" than some other set of values, then no. When I say I'm a moral nihilist, I mean I reject the idea that reality can be broken down into "right" and "wrong" and instead declare that reality simply is. Humans sticking normative labels on things like "better" or "worse" or "right" and "wrong" are precisely that - labels we stick on things. They're projections. It's map, not territory. It's a map of the territory I ultimately reject.
That said, there is not a human alive that doesn't make normative value judgements. When I do it, I prefer to avoid moralizing, or viewing things in black-and-white, right-vs-wrong terms. Rather than going "well, is that right or is that wrong" I ask "well, is that in keeping with your will (i.e., your honor, virtues, values, whatever) or isn't it?" And a callous disregard for the nonhuman world is definitely not in keeping with my values. Anthropocentrism is probably the cardinal sin of my sense of virtue. Than doesn't make me "right" or "wrong," it is just how I live my life. It just is.
That said, there is not a human alive that doesn't make normative value judgements. When I do it, I prefer to avoid moralizing, or viewing things in black-and-white, right-vs-wrong terms. Rather than going "well, is that right or is that wrong" I ask "well, is that in keeping with your will (i.e., your honor, virtues, values, whatever) or isn't it?" And a callous disregard for the nonhuman world is definitely not in keeping with my values. Anthropocentrism is probably the cardinal sin of my sense of virtue. Than doesn't make me "right" or "wrong," it is just how I live my life. It just is.