3 ms·
Honestly, it's pathetic that this is even a matter of discussion amongst a self-proclaimed intelligent community (or is it wisdom?). I won't honor this thread w
by nixpulvis 4y ago
Honestly, it's pathetic that this is even a matter of discussion amongst a self-proclaimed intelligent community (or is it wisdom?). I won't honor this thread with my counterpoints to the GDP argument since others have covered this to some extent. I live in the city, but even I understand the value of natural preservation.
We humans must become better shepherds of the earth we inhabit. It's not just out of the goodness of our hearts, but due to a moral obligation that binds us all.
- ShredKazoo 4y agoI'd say we have a moral obligation to help people in poverty. More global wealth makes that easier. One person's "natural preservation" is another person's status quo bias. Would you consider "natural preservation" to be a valid argument for, say, continuing a tradition that everyone agrees is harmful?
- nixpulvis 4y agoThat's a pointless question, since I'll immediately argue that not preserving nature is a tradition that everyone should agree is harmful.
- ShredKazoo 4y agoMy hypothetical was one where everyone did agree. I think preserving nature can be quite harmful: https://www.animal-ethics.org/wild-animal-suffering-matters/ https://www.animal-ethics.org/wild-animal-suffering-matters/ See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature (BTW, I think it's important to fight global warming -- but not because preserving the planetary status quo is important for its own sake)
- nixpulvis 4y agoI'm not looking at this from the microscopic perspective of animal suffering. Biodiversity alone is a pretty good signal for the health of our ecosystem. Yes, I'm quite glad humans have designed generally safer and happier means of existence for ourselves than the perils of the rest of the animal (and other lifeforms) kingdoms, but this does not make us immune from some harsh realities of nature. If we are careful, we should preserve our status without ushering in a complete collapse of those around us.
- epolanski 4y agoBut what if millions start losing their jobs because hundrends of millions aren't leasing a new car every 2/3 years anymore? This would be a disaster for our planet, GDP would collapse. /s
- throwaway292924 4y agoWhat moral obligation? Based on what framework of morality?
- nixpulvis 4y agoBespoke imposter! Let not your words penetrate my foundations. Let not your questions hold value in it of themselves. For you ask nothing with thinly veiled rhetoric. Now be gone, cast away with fervor and dismay.
- throwaway292924 4y agolol what? if you claim it to be a moral imperative. Moral based upon what?
- nixpulvis 4y agoFine I'll humor you with a quick quote. Arthur Schopenhauer; Ueber die Grundlage der Moral, 1840: "the everyday phenomenon of compassion, … the immediate participation, independent of all ulterior considerations, primarily in the suffering of another, and thus in the prevention or elimination of it…. Only insofar as an action has sprung from compassion does it have moral value; and every action resulting from any other motives has none."
- throwaway292924 4y agoFan of Mr.Schopenhauer, but unsure if this quote provides grounding for your objective moral imperative. This only says that actions derived from compassion are the only actions that have moral value. No explanation of why that is the case nor does it create a necessity for moral action. From the Schopenhauer perspective, the 'right' answer if I recall correctly is to embrace asceticism. To deny the will.
- nixpulvis 4y agoWhelp, I tried.