• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is nature morally wrong?

payak

Active Member
All i see is an immoral "natural predator" waiting to kill a defensless chipmunk. ;)




Lol, what exactly is a mercy killing? And I thought those were outlawed in the U.S.



So your saying nature destroys a part of itself, to promote survival for a better part of itself?



I haven't seen evidence for that one yet, but does why would "trafficking" be immoral as opposed to prostitution itself?

Prostitution is often a personal choice,being trafficked is not.
 

nash8

Da man, when I walk thru!
Prostitution is often a personal choice,being trafficked is not.

Indeed, and that is the only inherent morality I have been able to conclude. The only thing I can see that is truly inherently immoral is physically forcing your will on another for a means other than basic sustenance.
 

illykitty

RF's pet cat
So morality can only be applied to human endeavors?

I suppose. A lion isn't cruel for killing a gazelle and eating it... What do you want it to eat? It's no better for it to starve plus usually they kill the weakest animal, those that are ill or slow the rest of the herd down. That's what carnivores do, which is better than humans actually - we tend to pick our meat like we pick fruits or veg, the nicest looking.

We've got a conscience, choices, intellect, empathy... This is why there's morals in the first place. I don't think these things apply to nature, you can't reason with a lion and ask it to consider moral repercussions can you?

I would argue that polygamy within humans is genetic.

Me and my husband must be missing that DNA then... :areyoucra
 
Last edited:

philbo

High Priest of Cynicism
So your saying nature destroys a part of itself, to promote survival for a better part of itself?
That's a somewhat anthropomorphised way of saying the same thing: there isn't a "nature" that is, with intent, destroying a part of itself with promoting survival for a "better" part; that's just what happens to the multitudinous species within what we call "nature".
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
This would rely on the presumptions:
1. that prostitution is morally wrong

Why we got onto the subject, I can't for the life of me remember, but once when I was chatting to my doctor, he rather surprised me with his take on prostitution.

He mooted the point that this was a case in point where the use of judgemental terms (right, wrong) are so much better when replaced with "adaptive" and "maladaptive".

He told me that a number of his male older single or widowed patients were quite open about regular visits to prostitutes; as far as he was concerned (the doctor), the state of mind, and physical health of these men, he was certain, was all the better because of these regular visits.............
 
Top