5 ms·
I'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 st
by ShredKazoo 4y ago
I'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.