7 ms·
To me, nature has his own meaning of suffering and the value of life is intended at whole (think to the ants). Humans are somewhat off this mechanisms, maybe be
by bromuro 5y ago
To me, nature has his own meaning of suffering and the value of life is intended at whole (think to the ants). Humans are somewhat off this mechanisms, maybe because they can choose to inflict pain. This is the misery of humankind i like to think about, but nature - it is just like it is with no bad or good.
- shreyshnaccount 5y agohumans inflict pain for money, mostly. nature does so to be sustainable. I don't believe that any sentient life can exist and thrive without pain. that's part of the beauty of nature. things die. new things come up. it's absolutely bonkers to me how someone could think otherwise. good and bad is a human construct to classify human behavior. nothing would exist if there's no death.
- goldenkey 5y agoNo where in my comment did I associate death with moral badness. Nor did I say that pain in itself is something worthy of eradication. Suffering can be due to physical pain but not always. Sometimes it is due to lack of freedom. Parasites, bacteria, and viruses generally cause both pain and disability. Nature is romanticized but like OP states, it is metal and cruel. When we can eradicate suffering through destroying the planet, it is our moral imperative to do so. So far you have provided no counter arguments to this, instead you have misinterpreted my words and delegated to utterly worthless moral relativism.
- shreyshnaccount 5y agodestroying the planet will cause unprecedented suffering. so your moral imperative is causing literal Armageddon to stop suffering,, while causing suffering? doesn't seem consistent at all
- goldenkey 5y agoDeath isn't suffering, it's nonexistence. It's possible to obliterate the planet in a blink and annihilate all life on it without causing suffering. It just requires a massive directed energy weapon. ie a death star
- shreyshnaccount 5y agoyou talked about mental suffering, what about people who are emotionally attached to the planet and don't want to destroy it?
- goldenkey 5y agoThat's why obliterating worlds is an serious man's job. Emotional weakness will only hold one back from making morally hard decisions.
- shreyshnaccount 5y agoso your morality does not consider emotions? what's stopping you from eradicating humans from earth, because our species has disproportionately caused suffering on every other species?
- goldenkey 5y agoI've made my argument against wild animal suffering and explained why and how we should end it, when we have the ability to do so. Now you are changing the topic to try to implicate me as anti-human. Stop and think about how you are debating with ill intentions - how you are trying to invalidate my previous arguments through ad hominem by painting me as someone who would destroy humanity. Extremely disappointing. What do you have to say about the solution to wild animal suffering other than that some people will be sad?
- shreyshnaccount 5y agoyour argument makes a distinction between animals and humans. why?
- goldenkey 5y agoSlowly being disabled in excruciating pain due to a parasite is a bad experience. This can be universally agreed upon. I'd love to hear why this is neither good nor bad without you importing an external dependency like moral relativism or cute idioms like "circle of life."