Stephen Jay Gould Nonmoral Nature

As human beings we’re all affluent to live on this fascinating place called earth. We live everyday normally just as every other human, animal or insect. But we eradicate insects and animals as if they aren’t as important as we are. Nature is being inherently demolished by humans who are oblivious to know that all living things on the earth have a purpose . However, Annie Dillard, well-known for her ambiguous nonfiction books help support the importance of nature and why we shouldn't intrude upon it. For example, Dillard’s excerpt from “The Fixed” about a Polyphemus Moth uses countless rhetorical strategies to construct a compelling message about the peace and beauty of nature, but it also illustrates how easily mankind can destroy it. Therefore, a part of nature is to be naturally

With regard to the ubiquitous prevalence of pain, suffering, and death in the course of evolution, Pecocke sees both positive and negative aspects of natural evil. The increase in complexity that led to the emergence of consciousness was actually the consequence of the competition among species for better survival in natural selection. In that vein, the increase of entropy contributed the diversification of living organisms in the interplay of chance and law.

Since I hold a strong conviction in the one Triune God, I believe God created the entire universe for himself. When I look at the world, I see nothing but God’s beauty; His hand print on things that happen. However, I believe in an evil force that is at work in our universe and the leader of that force is Satan himself. Because he convinced Eve to eat the fruit from the tree of life that God did not permit them to eat, sin entered the world, thus the reason why we have thunderstorms, earthquakes, tornadoes etc… I do not believe everything that happens in the universe is an act of God. I believe Satan causes storms and disasters to happen as well. There is a good and evil at work in our universe because of sin, not because God wanted it that way.

In both Gilgamesh and Noah and the Flood, man’s wickedness leads to death, destruction, and rebirth all caused by billions of gallons of water sweeping the earth’s surface. The flood in both stories destroys most of mankind. The floods represent rebirth and a new beginning for mankind, as well as the gods and God’s wrath. In Gilgamesh the gods decide to destroy mankind by flooding the earth for six days and nights. Utnapishtim is chosen to build a boat in order to restart mankind after the flood. In the Bible God also decides to flood the earth due to the increase in wickedness. God chooses Noah to build an ark and store seven pairs of every clean animal and two of every other kind of animal on it

All disasters are either natural or man-made. Majority of the United States’ most costly disasters have been natural disasters (Steinberg, 2006). Ted Steinberg, an environmental historian, uses Acts of God to analyze how American interference with nature intensifies the harmfulness of natural disasters. Steinberg (2006), states “those in power have tended to view these events as purely natural in an effort to justify a set of responses that has proved both environmentally unsound, and socially, if not morally, bankrupt”(p.19). This book selectively exhibits solid facts pertaining to specific natural disasters; namely hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes. In this manner, Steinberg attempts to persuade readers of the idea that natural disasters are not outside of human control or consequence. The idea of an “act of God” was initially from the idea that natural disasters were a result of punishment for sin (Steinberg, 2006). When Americans started to venture from the idea of natural disasters being a result of human actions, the assumption arose that natural disasters were without human culpability.

In Paul Taylor’s essay, “The Ethics for Respect for Nature,” he argues that… In this paper I will first describe Taylor’s concept of “respect for nature.” I will then explain the part this attitude plays in rationally grounding a biocentric outlook on environmental ethics. Lastly, I will present Rosalind Hursthouse’s criticism of Taylor’s view, and state how Taylor might respond to this criticism.

Friedrich Nietzsche, a prominent German philosopher in the 19th century is one of the most well-read philosophers of the past two-centuries. His ideas regarding morality and nature continue to be discussed and debated to this day among scholars of all beliefs.

The two stories similarly utilize the symbolic cleansing associated with water as motivation for the destructive floods. Both acts of divine authority were a punishment sent from the heavens to exterminate humankind. Although provoked by comparable fury, the stimuli that enrage the deities conflict. In the polytheistic society of Gilgamesh, the decision to abolish the earth of

The focus of this paper will be R. G. Frey’s passage in “Moral Standing, the Value of Lives, and Speciesism”. The intended objection of the focus will be two moral theories, Kantianism and Act Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism being the rebuttal of the Kantianism view on the moral issue at hand.

The main theme of The Natural is morality and the consequences of bad morality. The novel takes a firm stance on morality, and punishes the characters who make bad moral choices. Many of the characters in the novel have very blurred morals; however, the main character Roy Hobbs must make the most moral choices. Roy's dream at the beginning of the novel is to be the best baseball player to ever play the game. He has the natural talent to accomplish this, but his poor choices hinder him. Roy's weakness comes in the form of attractive women. He is interested in a woman names Harriet at the beginning of the novel, and he eventually catches her eye by showing off his baseball talent. She meets Roy at a hotel room and attempts to murder him. Harriet

Kerry Emanuel starts off by explaining that the Earth’s climate does not naturally stabilize (hence the chapter title, “The Myth of Natural Stability”) and that even the slightest human interaction could send our climate on a downward spiral that we may not be able to recover from. Emanuel also talks about what he calls the, “two strands of environmental philosophy”, which is simply the scientific vs. religious or mythological view of the stability of the natural state of the universe. The scientific viewpoint credits things like heliocentricity and continental drift, while the other claims that the floods and comets were the works of god or gods.

In Respect for Life by Jane Goodall, Goodall uses her professional perspective as well as certain vocabulary and pronouns to successfully portray her negative outlook on humans. Her professional perspective informs the reader of human adoption of a selfish attitude towards others. Goodall, who spent many decades studying chimpanzees, is able to make a connection between our ape-like ancestors and the humans that they have evolved into. Goodall is able to emphasise her pessimistic standpoint toward humans through her word choice. Describing humans as self-destructive, Goodall creates a violent image of humans in the reader's mind where humans are “unfortunate,” full of “greed” and “selfishness.”

The speaker next uses biblical allusion when he says “anarchy” (4), to refer to the devil and how he is roaming through earth loosely. He elaborates on this when he says “blood-dimmed tide” and “drowned” (5-6). These lines are quoting Genesis and the book of Revelation. The speaker talks about Noah’s Arch. Where Noah saves himself, his family, and the rest of the animals from the flood. These biblical allusions symbolize a

Whether human beings are instinctually good or evil in an elementary natural state is a question that has been boggling the minds of even the greatest philosophers. There is a spectrum of theories that support both good and evil within the human race, each with valid points that explains the range of our interests, being either for ourselves or for others. However, my personal stance is the sensible theory of Altruism. Past experiences and observations allow me to take the stance, and support the argument that humans are caring and genuinely good individuals and have the will and desire to help those around them.

The author thinks human nature is uncooperative and irrationally destructive. I do not agree with that statement. Human nature essentially good. No one is born evil. Even though there is a lot of evil across the globe, there is more good. For every one bad deed, there are a hundred good deeds. God will put you on the right path.