Singer’s views seem to be essentially Christian, or like so much in Western culture, heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian morality. Please understand I am NOT arguing against this view, but only in the spirit of intellectual inquiry exploring another very different view.
The environmental movement advises us to look to nature for guidance, which seems very wise advice. I’m all for that, but the problem is, nature can be utterly ruthless.
What we are comparing here is a human designed moral philosophy which is something like 3,000 − 5,000 years old with a nature “designed” system of managing life which is something like a billion years old.
So, who to trust?
These little Johnny come lately human beings?
Or the ancient vast beyond imagination natural world?
Hitler and other psychopaths sided with the natural world in a remarkably clear minded manner. The nazis essentially said in a forthright manner, “We are the predator, and you are the prey, we are the strong and you are the weak”.
And that’s what nature says too. If you’re weak, if you can’t adapt, or adapt fast enough, too bad, you’re out of here.
And as it turned out, the nazis were weak, and so they were out of here. But they left behind a little present. Nuclear weapons. So maybe that contest between good and evil isn’t over yet?
So, I dunno. I’m certainly not going to endorse nazism. But I think we have to recognize that Christian morality is an argument with the natural world.
The Church itself took a pretty predatory position in regards to millions of innocents, and sadly, still seems to have that problem today. Could that be an argument that nature always wins in the end?
Singer’s views seem to be essentially Christian, or like so much in Western culture, heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian morality. Please understand I am NOT arguing against this view, but only in the spirit of intellectual inquiry exploring another very different view.
The environmental movement advises us to look to nature for guidance, which seems very wise advice. I’m all for that, but the problem is, nature can be utterly ruthless.
What we are comparing here is a human designed moral philosophy which is something like 3,000 − 5,000 years old with a nature “designed” system of managing life which is something like a billion years old.
So, who to trust?
These little Johnny come lately human beings?
Or the ancient vast beyond imagination natural world?
Hitler and other psychopaths sided with the natural world in a remarkably clear minded manner. The nazis essentially said in a forthright manner, “We are the predator, and you are the prey, we are the strong and you are the weak”.
And that’s what nature says too. If you’re weak, if you can’t adapt, or adapt fast enough, too bad, you’re out of here.
And as it turned out, the nazis were weak, and so they were out of here. But they left behind a little present. Nuclear weapons. So maybe that contest between good and evil isn’t over yet?
So, I dunno. I’m certainly not going to endorse nazism. But I think we have to recognize that Christian morality is an argument with the natural world.
The Church itself took a pretty predatory position in regards to millions of innocents, and sadly, still seems to have that problem today. Could that be an argument that nature always wins in the end?
I have no idea....