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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

True Essence

My yoga teacher, who knows a lot about me and my story, recently asked me "what do you like about yourself, what is your true essence?". I gave the usual answer that I have been giving myself for most of my life - that I am kind, generous, helpful etc. etc. That was not the answer he was looking for. He said those things are in relation to other people i.e. these traits are what I think other people perceive me as. But what is really MY true essence and what do I like about MYSELF. He gave me a week to think about it. That did get me thinking. I talked to some friends about it over the week. I realised how much of my self-perception is dictated by other people. And it has been like that all my life. What I think of myself is really what I think others think of me. Or what I want others to think of me. But if I take other people out of the equation, what am I? What is my true essence? The more I thought, the more I realised that my true essence is creativity. Looking back...
1 comment
Read more

The limitation of language

Humans developed language as a means of communicating with other tribe members. Language is one of the most important, if not THE most important, reason humans are so successful as a species. It enables us not only to communicate immediate information (e.g. there is a lion in that direction, don't go there) but also form and communicate intricate ideas (e.g. myths, religions). Yuval Hariri in his massively interesting book "Sapiens" talks about how what he calls "fiction" (i.e. stories we humans tell each other) enabled homo sapiens to co-operate in massive numbers (much more than the Dunbar limit of 150) and made us such a successful species. Language was critical in all of that.  I believe the advent of language was what gave the biggest boost to cultural evolution in humans. Humans are the only species that significantly evolve culturally as well as naturally. Cultural evolution is exponentially faster than natural evolution - we homo sapiens effectively ...
1 comment
Read more