-Caveat Lector- A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"
/A -Cui Bono?-
Nurev Ind Research wrote:
Sounds like Christian theology to me.
There is no such thing as good or evil in the natural world.
It is purely a human construct, and a random one at that.
--
from:
"The Moral Maze" by desertrat
http://www.geocities.com/golwis/mmaze5.htm
--
Part 5. The Deserted Island
Continuation from #4:
...You live on a deserted island, let's make it a
tropical paradise. You have a bunch of jetsom and
flotsom, gardening and construction tools, fishing
gear, guns, ammunition and an odd assortment of camping
gear. Other than this you are completely alone with the
plants and wild animals. At first, while you're
preparing to plant your garden, you wander around
hunting and gathering whatever you can find that's
edible, robbing the caches of squirrels and birds'
nests whenever you can find them. Is there anything
"immoral" about this? While You're out gathering, a
jaguar attacks you. Is the jaguar acting "immorally?"
In your own defense, you manage to kill the animal. You
take advantage of the kill by skinning and tanning the
hide and preserving the meat for later use as emergency
food or bait. Is this "good," "bad?" You return to your
camp and garden and notice that while you were out
gathering coconuts and killing jaguars that were
attacking you, a gopher or rabbit and a bunch of damn
tropical birds have been stealing from your garden.
Were they behaving "immorally?" You set some traps out
and try to discourage the birds from robbing you,
killing a few in the process. Let's say, you could have
used the dead bodies but just didn't feel like it so
you threw them away somewhere downwind of your camp for
some other wild animals to find. Are you a "bad" person
for wasting the bodies or for polluting the area
downwind of your camp?
*** Commentary ***
This is an amoral scenario. There is no moral or
immoral about any of this. There is only the law of
survival, the rule of success or failure. Not even the
cliche "might makes right" applies because there is no
objective "right" and "wrong." There is only success or
failure with luck or fate playing a role perhaps larger
than any of us is willing to imagine. You're lucky you
didn't wash up on an island inhabited by more fearsome
predators or more numerous and persistent parasites.
You might have been eaten by a crocodile or a hungry
lion, you might have been eaten alive by flies or ants.
All the moral protests in the world can do nothing to
save you in an amoral environment. But man has a
"moral" sense, (morality is at best, an illusion,) so
he naturally describes things in moral terms regardless
of its amoral nature. The sunset is "good," the leaking
roof is "bad," the taste of the coconut is "good,"
robbing a bird's nest is "good," killing a defenseless
baby bird is "bad," and so on. All such reasoning is
subjective, illusory, often delusional. The only guide
are one's emotions, not one's reason. Happiness, which
is the highest prize, is, after all, an emotion. What
makes the individual happy is for him "good." What
causes unhappiness is for him "bad."
*** The Story Continues ***
One day, there is a new arrival on the island. Another
human washes up on the beach. When your new companion
has recovered somewhat from exposure he wanders the
island and happens upon your camp. He immediately
demands that you provide him with food and shelter
since it is apparent that you have more than you need.
You're a bit surprised by his unfriendly manner and
refuse telling him to go gather some food the way you
did and to start his own garden. You aren't entirely
without compassion. You feel morally compelled to give
him a coconut or two because he's hungry, this would be
a very natural thing to do under the circumstances, I
think. You give him one of the jaguar skins you've
tanned because he's cold, you have more than you really
need and you want him to go away and leave you alone.
Secretly, of course, you're cursing at yourself because
you've already killed the jaguars that he would likely
have fallen prey to. He becomes very angry when you
tell him to go away and he storms off. That night he
sneaks into your camp and tries to steal some food from
your garden. Is he acting "immorally?"
*** More Commentary ***
How is his behavior any different from the behavior of
the tropical birds and the rodents? Only this, that he
"ought" to bahave differently, he "ought" to respect
your possessions. But if he chooses not to, he is only
"bad" or "immoral" from your subjective point of view.
From HIS subjective point of view, he sees nothing
"wrong" with taking from you what you "should have"
given to him to begin with. Objectively, that is,
removing all of the subjective values, looking at what
"is" as opposed to what "ought to be," the man's
behavior is no different from the other animals. There
can be no "morality" between you so long as his
behavior is amoral. You must deal with him according to
the rule
