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

Subconscious communication

We think we communicate mostly with words. But the fact if we don't know exactly how much communication or information exchange is happening on the subconscious level. We understand so little about the brain, and consciousness that this question is unequivocally unanswered - exactly how much information exchange happen on the subconscious level. I think it is far more than we think. The conscious brain is good at reasoning after the fact i.e. coming up with reasons why we think a certain way. And these reasons are not always right - they are just an attempt by the pre-frontal cortex to make sense of how we are feeling at the time. e.g. you meet someone for the first time. There is a lot of information exchange happening. Just you looking at this person, there are processes in your brain forming an idea about this person - they way he looks, the way he walks, the way he moves, the way he smells, the way he talks, his facial expressions etc. etc. there are many other non-verbal data ...

All life is problem solving

 What is happiness? Popper answered this question the best in his answer to what is the meaning of life. "All life is problem solving" Problem in the Popperian sense is not always something bad. Problem can be any unsolved thing that you are working on and the definition is not limited to science, art etc. Raising your kids well is also a problem in this sense, and so is trying to get better at dodgeball. Working on a problem is a process of knowledge creation. So in a sense, life is a process of knowledge creation. What is a good life then? what is a happy life? It is a life where the problems you are working on, the knowledge that you are creating, are interesting to YOU. This is the key here - YOU find these problems interesting and are free of coercion in choosing these problems. This is easier said than done. I wrote about it in an earlier blog post , but I believe most misery (excluding misery due to physical pain/limitations, or psychological issues that are real e.g. ...