3 ms·

Correct. When we speak of moral we assume that there are choices, and then you pick one. If there is no choice, there is no moral. The description of what happe

Correct. When we speak of moral we assume that there are choices, and then you pick one. If there is no choice, there is no moral. The description of what happened to animals and wildlife (especially from the 20th century) as a deterministic force of nature, a.k.a gas release, can lead us to think that this is how evolution works, no choice, no moral. You can say "I support ivory jewels" or "I object ivory jewels". Both opinions are very different than saying "ivory jewels is a natural force of nature like gas release". The level of nature depletion by humans is, to some extent, a choice.

krick 12y ago
Not really. You can speak of moral only if you are one of these 5 people who made a "choice". And, in fact, only if you are talking to people, that support your choice. In other case your speaking of moral is nothing more than saying "I'm right because I think I'm right" which isn't really an argument. So, to be able to think about the world more clearly the "neutral position" is invented. There's no moral, no good or bad, there's just stuff that happens, causes and effects. And from that point of view primate, making nuclear weapons and causing extinction of the species is no different from some bacteria, who filled atmosphere with metane. But that, again, has nothing to do with what actual author of this thread was saying. So I'm saying it only to point out that your appeal to morality is invalid. And if you'd ask me, I don't want elephants to extinct, but that doesn't make neutral arguments bad. It might be my position that goes against neutral one, but speaking is not really of much value in that case.
- DodgyEggplant 12y ago
  That's my point. We are one of those 5 people. Daily. What we consume, eat, how we influence others, the agenda we vote for, is a choice. The bacteria has no such choice, we do. So we can, and should, take a moral stand. Always.
  - kazagistar 12y ago
    Choice is not black and white. Bacteria have a low amount of choice. Most humans have a fairly high choice compared to most animals. Among humans, some have more choice then others. We can pretend that morals are special and different, but they too are the product of some chemical machinery.

krick 12y ago

Not really. You can speak of moral only if you are one of these 5 people who made a "choice". And, in fact, only if you are talking to people, that support your choice. In other case your speaking of moral is nothing more than saying "I'm right because I think I'm right" which isn't really an argument. So, to be able to think about the world more clearly the "neutral position" is invented. There's no moral, no good or bad, there's just stuff that happens, causes and effects. And from that point of view primate, making nuclear weapons and causing extinction of the species is no different from some bacteria, who filled atmosphere with metane. But that, again, has nothing to do with what actual author of this thread was saying. So I'm saying it only to point out that your appeal to morality is invalid. And if you'd ask me, I don't want elephants to extinct, but that doesn't make neutral arguments bad. It might be my position that goes against neutral one, but speaking is not really of much value in that case.

DodgyEggplant 12y ago
That's my point. We are one of those 5 people. Daily. What we consume, eat, how we influence others, the agenda we vote for, is a choice. The bacteria has no such choice, we do. So we can, and should, take a moral stand. Always.
- kazagistar 12y ago
  Choice is not black and white. Bacteria have a low amount of choice. Most humans have a fairly high choice compared to most animals. Among humans, some have more choice then others. We can pretend that morals are special and different, but they too are the product of some chemical machinery.