On Nature: Change or Equilibrium?

[lhynard]

This entry is related in part to one I posted nearly three years ago on the "spiritual left"'s view of nature.[1] In that entry I wrote about how many in today's world assume that natural = good

Comments

[jeltzz]

Good points. I would argue that for someone holding a naturalist philosophy, the question 'should' with regards to nature is impossible to answer. Or, at least, deeply problematic. If 'nature' is the moral yardstick, then it's fine for animals to eat each other into extinction, which pretty much would mine it's not morally objectionable for human beings to cannibalise the planet for our own purposes. If what ought to be is purely derived from what is, surely every situation that exists is, by definition, what ought to be.