MORALS in Nature?
Morals, some say, should be left up to the individual choice of the person. My morals may be slightly different than your morals, and that’s OK. Is there a natural Moral Law? What would happen if we all had different morals?
I had a thought, maybe random, maybe not. If I follow my morals, what will happen? If you follow yours, what will happen? Will they clash? Almost inevitably. And when they clash, what will be the outcome?
In nature, we see the saying ‘the strong survive’ played out in vivid detail. Those who can run fast, fight hard, and are healthy live long. A weak or sick animal will most likely get attacked first. It’s nature’s way of weeding out those who don’t belong. Is that the way things are supposed to be?
If we take a look at morals, any morals, it’s difficult to choose specifically which ones to follow. My religion is far more conservative than the religion of the world. Being accepting, and allowing, seems to be a modern trend. What was once taboo is now not only commonplace, but is readily accepted and welcomed. What would never have been done before is not only being done now but is being fought for by our government and by a large portion of society. Is this right? Should we allow morals to ‘evolve’ and try to always stay ahead of the curve? What will this mean for future generations?
Two moral situations that are prevalent in society today are homosexuality and abortion. Both, in Canada, have been legalized. We are now ahead of the curve, as the third country to legalize gay marriage. What is the next step?
Nature, it seems, has a way of weeding out those who don’t belong anymore. Maybe, in a strange way, we need to take that into consideration. I doubt anyone would disagree with me when I say murder is evil. That is an accepted moral standard. It seems, somehow, that even those whose moral beliefs don’t think it is wrong are still imprisoned (rightfully) by those of us who claim that all morals should be accepted, as morals are up to the individual.
If we look at each moral issue and ask a specific question, we get a broader perspective on the issue. The question is this: If this moral belief was strictly practiced by every human being in the world, what would happen? Take into account now murder. If everyone murdered, there would be killing and bloodshed everywhere, which would only result in one person (the final murderer) being alive, in which case they would simply die and humans would be extinct.
If everyone ate fast food, smoked cigarettes, and drank alcohol, our world would simply spiral out of existence. Lung cancer would kill people at a young age, perhaps even before they were able to reproduce. If they did reproduce, their children would most likely develop FAS. People would begin to weigh more than barges, and would sink just as easily. Eventually the world would be reduced to young drunk, coughing, and fat people. At some point they would begin dying before sexual maturity, and children would cease to be born, at which point they would fade from existence as well.
If everyone was a terrorist, we’d all be dead. If everyone smoked, we’d probably all wind up dead. If everyone was greedy, we’d be a bunch of stealing backstabbers who never earned an honest dollar, which could only result in pain (and death) as it progressed. Maybe this is nature’s way of telling us not to do it.
Maybe this is nature’s way of telling us it’s wrong.
Consider, for instance, the case of abortion. If every pregnant woman in the world would have an abortion, we would die out in roughly 80-100 years. There would simply be no offspring.
Consider, for instance, the case of homosexuality. If all humans became homosexual, there would be no sexual reproduction, no children for gay couples to adopt, and they would find themselves childless and dying out in 80-100 years.
Maybe this is nature’s way of telling us what is right and wrong.
There are very few people today who don’t know the dangers of pollution. If we all polluted as much as possible, the earth would eventually run out of clean air, resources, and landfill sites. We’d be overrun in a world full of carbon monoxide, potentially thousands of years down the road, but in the future nonetheless. But if we simply held on to environmental ideals, we can save this world for the future.
Being a servant could make the world a much better place. If everyone would serve willingly and joyfully the world would be a much better place. This would get accomplished far quicker and more efficiently, and there would be no monopolies or dominance.
If we hold on to the values that establish an ‘immortality’ for our children and their children on this earth, I believe that those are the right morals. Maybe God didn’t lay down a moral law for us, but I do believe that nature can tell us the things we should do and the things we shouldn’t. If, as we see it, human life is unsustainable if everyone on the face of this planet participated fully in the activity, it may not be the right thing to do. But if it not only allows for the immortality of our children, but potentially even improves their lives, then it is clearly the right thing to do.
I had a thought, maybe random, maybe not. If I follow my morals, what will happen? If you follow yours, what will happen? Will they clash? Almost inevitably. And when they clash, what will be the outcome?
In nature, we see the saying ‘the strong survive’ played out in vivid detail. Those who can run fast, fight hard, and are healthy live long. A weak or sick animal will most likely get attacked first. It’s nature’s way of weeding out those who don’t belong. Is that the way things are supposed to be?
If we take a look at morals, any morals, it’s difficult to choose specifically which ones to follow. My religion is far more conservative than the religion of the world. Being accepting, and allowing, seems to be a modern trend. What was once taboo is now not only commonplace, but is readily accepted and welcomed. What would never have been done before is not only being done now but is being fought for by our government and by a large portion of society. Is this right? Should we allow morals to ‘evolve’ and try to always stay ahead of the curve? What will this mean for future generations?
Two moral situations that are prevalent in society today are homosexuality and abortion. Both, in Canada, have been legalized. We are now ahead of the curve, as the third country to legalize gay marriage. What is the next step?
Nature, it seems, has a way of weeding out those who don’t belong anymore. Maybe, in a strange way, we need to take that into consideration. I doubt anyone would disagree with me when I say murder is evil. That is an accepted moral standard. It seems, somehow, that even those whose moral beliefs don’t think it is wrong are still imprisoned (rightfully) by those of us who claim that all morals should be accepted, as morals are up to the individual.
If we look at each moral issue and ask a specific question, we get a broader perspective on the issue. The question is this: If this moral belief was strictly practiced by every human being in the world, what would happen? Take into account now murder. If everyone murdered, there would be killing and bloodshed everywhere, which would only result in one person (the final murderer) being alive, in which case they would simply die and humans would be extinct.
If everyone ate fast food, smoked cigarettes, and drank alcohol, our world would simply spiral out of existence. Lung cancer would kill people at a young age, perhaps even before they were able to reproduce. If they did reproduce, their children would most likely develop FAS. People would begin to weigh more than barges, and would sink just as easily. Eventually the world would be reduced to young drunk, coughing, and fat people. At some point they would begin dying before sexual maturity, and children would cease to be born, at which point they would fade from existence as well.
If everyone was a terrorist, we’d all be dead. If everyone smoked, we’d probably all wind up dead. If everyone was greedy, we’d be a bunch of stealing backstabbers who never earned an honest dollar, which could only result in pain (and death) as it progressed. Maybe this is nature’s way of telling us not to do it.
Maybe this is nature’s way of telling us it’s wrong.
Consider, for instance, the case of abortion. If every pregnant woman in the world would have an abortion, we would die out in roughly 80-100 years. There would simply be no offspring.
Consider, for instance, the case of homosexuality. If all humans became homosexual, there would be no sexual reproduction, no children for gay couples to adopt, and they would find themselves childless and dying out in 80-100 years.
Maybe this is nature’s way of telling us what is right and wrong.
There are very few people today who don’t know the dangers of pollution. If we all polluted as much as possible, the earth would eventually run out of clean air, resources, and landfill sites. We’d be overrun in a world full of carbon monoxide, potentially thousands of years down the road, but in the future nonetheless. But if we simply held on to environmental ideals, we can save this world for the future.
Being a servant could make the world a much better place. If everyone would serve willingly and joyfully the world would be a much better place. This would get accomplished far quicker and more efficiently, and there would be no monopolies or dominance.
If we hold on to the values that establish an ‘immortality’ for our children and their children on this earth, I believe that those are the right morals. Maybe God didn’t lay down a moral law for us, but I do believe that nature can tell us the things we should do and the things we shouldn’t. If, as we see it, human life is unsustainable if everyone on the face of this planet participated fully in the activity, it may not be the right thing to do. But if it not only allows for the immortality of our children, but potentially even improves their lives, then it is clearly the right thing to do.