Nykytyne2 does a relatively short introduction to ethics.

Comment by Allen Sneed on April 9, 2010 at 2:39pm
I'm not sure where this would fall in the chart diagram. I think it falls under ethical naturalism, but I don't see that it has to deal with the "is/ought" problem.

From observing nature, it seems obvious that the "purpose" of life is to propagate itself. Therefore, as living beings, we ought to try to propagate life in order to fulfill our purpose. Therefore, any behavior that contributes to the net propagation of life is "good" and one that contributes to the net destruction of life is "bad."

I use the word "net" to indicate that in certain circumstances, destroying individual lives contributes to the net propagation of life. For example, a cat eating a mouse is not in and of itself "bad" because the cat is propagating her own life and the lives of her potential offspring by doing so. She may also be strengthening the mouse population by weeding out the weaker individuals. But killing a mouse for a reason other than to contribute to the net propagation of life would be "bad." For example, exterminating all mice would be bad. Killing a mouse simply for fun would be bad.

Since pain is an indication of harm to a living being, pain can generally be considered bad - or counterproductive to the net propagation of life. That would explain why normally functioning sentient beings make attempts to avoid painful stimuli rather than seek them out. It also does a good job of explaining why torturing a mouse would be bad.

Anyway, that is my basic moral premise and conclusion. How does it fit into this chart?

P.S. I think that for the most part, the complexity of the web of life is beyond our comprehension, so it makes most sense to live in such a way that minimizes our impact on other life forms as much as possible rather than to try to come up with elaborate and potentially erroneous justifications for destroying other life forms.
Comment by Shine on April 10, 2010 at 8:22am
Allen,

P.S. I think that for the most part, the complexity of the web of life is beyond our comprehension, so it makes most sense to live in such a way that minimizes our impact on other life forms as much as possible rather than to try to come up with elaborate and potentially erroneous justifications for destroying other life forms.

If this is in reference to my comments in the On being a vegetarian thread, I responded in the thread directly and will not address it here.
Comment by Allen Sneed on April 12, 2010 at 1:18pm
My P.S. was not in reference to any other posts.
Comment by Shine on April 12, 2010 at 1:46pm
Allen, please accept my apologies for misinterpreting your statement.
Comment by Allen Sneed on April 12, 2010 at 2:40pm
No need to apologize. And I have figured out an answer to my own question. But maybe not. Is this idea ethical naturism and does it not avoid the is/ought problem? :

Premise: The goal of life is to propagate life.
Conclusion: Therefore, things that contribute to the net propagation of life are "good" and things that contributes to the net destruction of life are "bad."

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

  

Forum

FROM THE WORD OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Started by Stephen Gunn in Small Talk. Last reply by Erock68la 3 hours ago. 5 Replies

Lobby

Started by Glen L in Small Talk. Last reply by Glen L 4 hours ago. 4 Replies

Disorders of Sex Development

Started by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp in Small Talk. Last reply by Simon Paynton 4 hours ago. 12 Replies

Deepak's challenge

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 9 hours ago. 29 Replies

Events

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 11 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service