The aggression is due to the presence of carnivores (humans mainly). — Devans99

"When male fig wasps, Idarnes spp., hatch inside the fig they attempt to decapitate their brothers that hatch in the same fig, attacking them with large and powerful mandibles (Hamilton 1967). Similarly, male elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) may kill rivals during fights over access to females (Hayley 1994) and male fallow deer (Dama dama) employ violent head-on "jump clashes" during the rut at the start of the breeding season (Jennings et al. 2005). In these three examples, aggressive behavior is being used by each rival in order to maximize its chances of success in a conflict over who gets to mate with the available females. "

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/territoriality-and-aggression-13240908

If that discussion got to the point of anyone concluding that good is mathematically better, it really went off the rails--comically so. — Terrapin Station

Tis simple:

Long term > short term so
Good is what's right in the long term
Evil is what's right in the short term
Hence Good > Evil

I can't repeat the whole thread here.

Again, you can think whatever you like. The fact is that evaluations of anything, including the Holocaust, are made by individuals. They're not made by anything else. — Terrapin Station

But if someone evaluates genocide to be a good thing that would be patently absurd.

Somethings cause so much suffering and destruction that to claim they were good would make the notion of good meaningless. However if someone enjoys rough sex and getting whipped then that is in the realm of personal preference.

Also if you were dying of cancer it seems that only you can evaluate the situation and what it feels like. Which then makes someone else's evaluation irrelevant.

I think morality can be what you want it to be. For some people motivation is the most important aspect of morality ( like virtue ethicists). But for others consequences are the main concern like utilitarians. Utilitarians can refer to objective states of affairs to measure the impact of behavior on the world.

My main position here is probably a utilitarian calculation where suffering outweighs pleasure objectively.

How about metempsychosis (reincarnation), cause and effect (also reflected in the idea of heaven and hell), evolution, atman (the divine self), etc, are just a few points of view that come to mind and which seem to justify morality. — BrianW

These kind of positions and religious positions do add another dimension of value but it dependents on whether there is any evidence for them.

I find reincarnation problematic ethically because it seems that if you do not know who or what you were in a previous life then you don't know where you are coming from or heading. I have a real fear I might be being punished in my current circumstances because of the chance i was a nasty person n a former life.

I think biblical morality and Gods conduct is problematic. There are contradictions among other things. But I think the fallen world/angry gods myths have been a powerful narrative to try and justify suffering.

When male fig wasps, Idarnes spp., hatch inside the fig they attempt to decapitate their brothers that hatch in the same fig, attacking them with large and powerful mandibles (Hamilton 1967). Similarly, male elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) may kill rivals during fights over access to females (Hayley 1994) and male fallow deer (Dama dama) employ violent head-on "jump clashes" during the rut at the start of the breeding season (Jennings et al. 2005). In these three examples, aggressive behavior is being used by each rival in order to maximize its chances of success in a conflict over who gets to mate with the available females. — Andrew4Handel

Nature is just a starting point from which we start the main thrust of intelligence guided evolution of the planet. In the long term, wasps could be chemically neutered along with other dangerous / unsociable animals. Animal food supplies could be genetically altered so that they include drugs to reduce aggressive behaviour. We could eventually genetically engineer excess aggression out of animals.

Returning to the OP question, Is life immoral? I guess I'd answer it like this: Unenvolved life can be immoral but fully evolved life is completely moral.

That is the direction the human race is heading (slowly); we are far from fully evolved yet. We need to include the animals on this journey.

Good is what's right in the long term — Devans99

That's a subjective judgment. Someone could easily make the opposite judgment. It would be incoherent to say that they're incorrect for making a different judgment.

Long term "is better than" short term would be a subjective judgment, too.

Long term "is longer than" short term isn't subjective, but that can't amount to long term is better than short term.

But if someone evaluates genocide to be a good thing that would be patently absurd. — Andrew4Handel

In other words, you and many other people would have a very strong reaction against their disposition. Yeah, no shit. That your reaction is strong or common doesn't make it something other than an individual judgment.

That's a subjective judgment. Someone could easily make the opposite judgment — Terrapin Station

And they'd be mathematically wrong to do so. Long term > Short term so it's always mathematically wrong to do evil (evil=act in a short term manner).

There is nothing subjective about it at all. Good>Evil. It's just math.

Everyone is a “slave” then. Armed police are “neo-killers” I suppose? Seriously, this is utter nonsense and a viciously dangerous use of language.

Next you’ll be suggesting that factory managers are “neo-slave drivers” I suspect.

Note: I’m coming at you hard because I consider “slaves” as people who are owned by others. And simply saying it is “like” they are owned isn’t good enough. Slave Labour is unpaid forced labour not cohersed badly paid labour.

Everyone is a “slave” then. — I like sushi

You can argue that people are slaves for various reasons. I do not believe that transatlantic slavery is the only form of slavery.

I think there is an extent to which parents own their children. I experienced this as a child and had no rights, I had to go to church up to 5 times a week and my parents believed in total obedience and complete parental authority.

I think most people are forced to work because not working isn't viable so that people are not making a genuine choice. None of this is to say that Historical slavery is not worse. Although it is quite possible to have a terrible quality of life in his era.

In other words, you and many other people would have a very strong reaction against their disposition. Yeah, no shit. That your reaction is strong or common doesn't make it something other than an individual judgment. — Terrapin Station

You appear to be giving the individuals preference as the only reason something is wrong. But this is not like someones preference for beef over pork.

I don't think people find mass suffering wrong simply because of the emotional response they have to it.

To clarify what I am talking about:

Slavery is far from gone. The official slave trade has been replaced by large numbers of exploited workers. A significant amount of people work for no pay. People are trapped in war zones coerced into work or will sell their labor for next to nothing unfortunately. — Andrew4Handel

Slavery has not been going up. Exploited workers are not “slaves.” Yes, people places are still in slavery no doubt; I’ve seen it’s head peek out every now and again.

This is a little like people giving figures for Sexual Assault which sounds awful, but quite often the numbers reflected in these circumstances involve verbal abuse, and “violence” now is often equated with verbal abuse too. This is a problem when people start churning out the stats to paint this or that picture.

To talk of “slave labor” in prisons is bizarre to say the least. Those poor, poor criminals! That is not to say I don’t understand the issues with the judiciary system, but it is not like all those people chose crime as a means of survival. They pay a debt to society.

Poverty, on a global scale, has also DRAMATICALLY declined this century. Yes, many love on the poverty line, but the direction we’re currently going in financially on a global scale is generally positive.

Another point about stats. Let us imagine two separate populations 1000 people are murdered in a population of 1,000,000 per year and 1 is murdered in a population of 100 per year over a 5 years period. Where would you live? In the first that means 0.1 chance of being murdered in the second it means a 1.0% chance of being murdered. Of course there is more to reality than this simplistic model the point is to show how numbers and percentages differ our perceptions.

For me, moral is a matter of cause and effect and it is weighed in favor of life.

In Greek philosophy the question of good and bad comes up many times. They asked...
Is something good or bad because the gods say it is so, or do they say something is good or bad because it is good or bad?

That brings us to the thought ... If life favored immorality, destruction, all would be destroyed like a monster of destruction that devours everything until there is nothing left but to devour itself.

It is concluded what is good is good because it promotes life and what is bad destroys, and even the gods are subject to this reality. They do not create it. This leads us to rule by reason for if our reasoning is good, things will go well, and if our reasoning is bad things go wrong. So it does matter what we think and what we do.

I don't think anyone knowledgeable of history would think things are worse than they were 300 hundred years ago. Not even freemen had the freedoms we have gained since the concepts of democracy and science have spread. However, I would say the US democracy is in decline, but I think education can turn this back around.

It just doesn’t hold up for me. People can chose not to work for a low wage. For some the choice seems impossible ... yet I met a 22 year old girl from Cambodia several years ago who had no family. She’d travelled around the world twice. Obviously she was extremely smart and street smart too so she managed to get byby networking well, being friendly and confident. Personally I’ve see people living in so called “free society” in the west who seemed to ne living a zombie like souless existence; material world and all that.

I’ve seen previously poverty stricken countries expand and develop a great deal over the past decade. There are problems though and always will be. I do think we’re still lagging behind the tech we’ve developed and globally people aree only just beginning to reap the rewards.

My fear is what people will do if they have leisure time. Something like the lottery winner who suddenly realises they liked their mundane day-to-day job. People need people. Economics will work toward efficiency and morality will work towards inevitably fitting morality into economics - the old saying “a happy worker is a hardworker” is true enough to sustain us I think. People suffering in REAL slavery today are going to be roused sooner rather than later. People can fight for something they can see and now the internet is expanding and reaching out further and further soon everyone will be able to see everything and start to say “No!”

Give it a century, if that ;)

Anyway, ethics is a public discussion. There is no absolute truth, yet there is enough moral cohesion to act like there is an ethical truth. Like I said for simplicity I refer to “morality” as subjective and “ethics” as intersubjective; both necessarily feed of each other.

Of course. And people in the US may only use the US as the rule of thumb. Globally, over the past two decades, world poverty has been more than halved. In the west this is not something people really feel.

No doubt in many western countries poverty may have actually increased a little, waxed and waned over that period (percentage-wise, not flat figures; which can be easily used to distort any picture given the exponential growth of populations.)

"Good is what's right in the long term"
— Devans99

I agree 100%. We are immoral when we are ignorant and unaware of the bigger picture. We have democracy because of the reasoning of Cicero, a Roman statesman who studied in Athens. He explained that we are compelled to decide in favor in the good, therefore, failure to make the right choice is a matter of ignorance.

Of course, it can be argued that our emotions may overrule our reason, but this is relatively rare compared to making bad decisions out of ignorance. Unfortunately, in this time of fast foods, many people are very short-term thinkers and rural people tend to have very little knowledge of the world yet think they know all they need to know to make good judgments. This is a serious educational problem.

That brings us to the thought ... If life favored immorality, destruction, all would be destroyed like a monster of destruction that devours everything until there is nothing left but to devour itself. — Athena

I don't see why immorality would favor self destruction. You could argue that the continuation of life allows for the continuation of suffering and immorality. Hope is like a soporific drug.

I do wonder about the presence of good. It is true that life could be terrible all the time for everyone but it isn't. So it is hard to believe in a completely malicious God.

However you could say that a moral judgement comes after life starts to exists so the judgement is created by the data. Life just happens to tend in a certain direction.

evil=act in a short term manner — Devans99

Again, that is a subjective judgment.

You appear to be giving the individuals preference as the only reason something is wrong. But this is not like someones preference for beef over pork.

I don't think people find mass suffering wrong simply because of the emotional response they have to it. — Andrew4Handel

"The emotional response they have to it" is a fact about individuals. It obtains so long as the individual in question has that emotional response. It doesn't obtain just in case they do not.

So yeah, the reason that something is right or wrong morally is because of the way an individual feels about it. In that sense, it's like someone's preference for food or anything else.

How about anaesthetics? It was a bundle of laughs before that I'm sure. In fact modern medicine in general makes our lives much better. — Devans99

Medicine has been around since recorded history and probably before that. Modern medicine makes it possible to treat more severe diseases and conditions. So apart from those (un)fortunate few who had their serious ailments treated by modern medicine, it doesn't make healthy people's lives much different. With that said, people are still dying in droves to all sorts of things modern medicine can't treat, so at large modern medicine is exchanging one death for another.

Anyways, since you seem to be in favour of killing people off after they have lived sixty healthy years, why not instead let nature run its course and control the population that way? We don't have to start arbitrarily killing our parents when they reach sixty healthy years, and we can remove the incredible drain the pharmaceutical industry is on the world's resources (#4 950 billion). Arguably 950 billion dollars worth of resources wasted on keeping people alive, which would be killed off later.

The Internet is improving my life quality as I type this; I'm rather isolated so it great to have people to discuss this stuff with. — Devans99

Without the internet you may have been an entirely different person. Consider that without modern technology you'd have no way to entertain yourself but to engage with other people. People would be more social in general. You'd be completely fine.

For entertainment, modernity spoils us with a choice of books, TV, Film, play, music, computer games. — Devans99

Music and literature are hardly a product of the modern world. Additionally, experts have long since debated whether more choice makes us happier, and a lot of them conclude it doesn't. If you want to read about this, read "The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less" by Barry Schwartz.

For safety, the atom bomb has keep the lid on war for the last 75 years. — Devans99

Now this is veritably untrue, since there hasn't been a year in the 20th century without war. Countries have threatened with the use of nuclear weapons throughout the second half of the 20th century and they still do to this day. Not only that, we've gotten extremely close to using them on numerous occasions, which would have ended life as we know it. So neither did it put a stop to war, nor does it provide any guarantee for the future. Major powers are renewing their nuclear arsenals as we speak.If your final argument is that technology is a blessing because it has given humanity the power to wipe itself out, then I'd say humanity is the last entity we'd want to trust with that power.

evil=act in a short term manner
— Devans99

Again, that is a subjective judgment. — Terrapin Station

Its mathematical. Short < Long, hence the phase 'he acted short-sightedly'. Focus on short term pleasure (instead of long term pleasure) is evil for self and those around you. You really should read the other thread.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4395/defining-good-and-evil

You can dispute whether life is immoral but I don't think you can dispute that it is harmful.

I think it is a short step from harmful to immoral.

I think if someone cannot tell the difference between serious harm and altruism then their perceptual system or conceptualizing scheme is broken

Anyways, since you seem to be in favour of killing people off after they have lived sixty healthy years — Tzeentch

I merely mentioned that the book Brave New World contained that solution. But there is a genuine problem beneath the consideration. As you get older life quality reduces and what exactly do we do about it? We also need to make room for the next generation. We can't live for ever. What the book eludes to is genetically engineered humans that painlessly shut down after 60.0 years of perfect functioning.

Without the internet you may have been an entirely different person. Consider that without modern technology you'd have no way to entertain yourself but to engage with other people. People would be more social in general. You'd be completely fine. — Tzeentch

No I would not. I live in the back end of beyond. The internet is of great value. Without the internet I would need to hire a full time tutor to educate me; I cannot afford that and the internet is so superior to what a tutor could teach me.

Music and literature are hardly a product of the modern world. Additionally, experts have long since debated whether more choice makes us happier, and a lot of them conclude it doesn't — Tzeentch

The increased free time of the modern world does allow for more music and literature than in the past. More should mean higher quality in the end... maybe we need to spend longer on each piece.

Now this is veritably untrue, since there hasn't been a year in the 20th century without war. — Tzeentch

I know there have been many minor wars, but know more major wars like WW1 or WW2. The 21st century is less warlike than the 20th, which is less warlike than the 19th. Etc... We are very fortunate to live in the 21st century; hardly any of us have seen military service.

Life is harmful? Harmful to what? Harmful to life?

So the logic goes that life is immoral because it is harmful to life.

Do I need to point out the problem with that kind of logic?

What I realize is the tightening of opportunity and the horror that our children maybe not be competitive and may themselves become jobless and homeless, even if they are greatly in debt for school loans and have college degrees. Our children no longer have the luxury of being children but are expected to perform as college students totally dedicated to their educations. No more careless and free days for children, not even recesses or PE but total dedication to preparing for a high tech job. Any other purpose of education is axed from the school budgets cheating artistic and talented children from the educations they need to actualize their potential and killing the culture that all civilizations need. Never in the history of humanity has life been so unfit for humans. But on the other hand, never has life been so good.

We are at crossroads. Do we want to manifest the human dream of the enlightenment or do we want to be the efficient Borg? The ultimate Nazi power minus the racial prejudice. The old world order was family order. The New World Order is Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens. I loved the original Star Trek shows and all the warnings of the danger of being a computer-controlled society, but those shows were not family shows. The role models were not mothers and fathers. And at this point in time, our bottom line is the dollar, not humanity. We want the world to spend more in arms because it is good for our economy. It is unfortunate if a child looses a parent or grandparent or his/her own life because s/he can not afford the foods and medication to manage diabetes but that is really none of our business. Arming Saudi Arabia is our business. :lol:

"However you could say that a moral judgement comes after life starts to exists so the judgement is created by the data. Life just happens to tend in a certain direction."

No life does not just tend in a certain direction. It can only move in the direction of good or become nonexistent. That is the point of the story of the destructive monster. If the tendency were in the favor of destruction, all would be destroyed, long before you and I got here to argue the matter.

As far as moral judgment coming after the manifestation of matter and then the manifestation of man, that is agreeable. Chadian said, "life is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man." We are possibly god's consciousness unable to be aware of self through any other manifestation other than man, and as far as we know this is exclusively true on the planet earth.

No I would not. I live in the back end of beyond. The internet is of great value. Without the internet I would need to hire a full time tutor to educate me; I cannot afford that and the internet is so superior to what a tutor could teach me. — Devans99

Of course the internet has value. The question is whether you'd miss it had you never known it existed. You probably would've made different choices and if you had some desire to engage socially with people you wouldn't have chosen a home in the middle of nowhere. If you desired to engage in studies, you would've bought a book. But I digress and I am speculating now. For most people, they would find other ways to educate and entertain themselves. The internet doesn't have a monopoly on those things for the vast majority of people. Besides, we haven't even touched the fact that the internet is, amongst other things, a breeding ground for mankind's vilest of deviants.

The increased free time of the modern world does allow for more music and literature than in the past. More should mean higher quality in the end... maybe we need to spend longer on each piece. — Devans99

You said it yourself. Quantity doesn't equal quality, especially for music and literature, both of which I hold in high regard. I think you'll agree with me that with all that time and money spent on these subjects they have very little works of substance to show for it.

I know there have been many minor wars, but know more major wars like WW1 or WW2. The 21st century is less warlike than the 20th, which is less warlike than the 19th. Etc... We are very fortunate to live in the 21st century; hardly any of us have seen military service. — Devans99

Yes, I understand your sentiment, however your argument is based around the hope that the weapons which are keeping us safe right now will never be used in war. If they do get used, it will probably mean our end. Forever is a very long time. How many decades of close calls can we endure before finally one tips us over the edge? Like the sword of Damocles it is a ticking time bomb, and given mankind's propensity to war I very much doubt it would keep ticking for all eternity.

Life is harmful? Harmful to what? Harmful to life?

So the logic goes that life is immoral because it is harmful to life.

Do I need to point out the problem with that kind of logic? — I like sushi

I don't see a problem with those statements.

Life is harmful to those that possess it or constitute it. Life is immoral because it transgresses any moral standards we create. So for example if we value consent and freedom the means of creating life undermines consent and freedom.

Someone can be harmful to herself or beneficial to herself.

You probably would've made different choices and if you had some desire to engage socially with people you wouldn't have chosen a home in the middle of nowhere. — Tzeentch

I did not choose where to live. The internet enhances my life. I would use it no matter where I lived. The world's information at my finger tips. It's brilliant. As for the sicko's they would probably express themselves some other way if it was not for the internet. We can police the internet so I don't see a problem.

Yes, I understand your sentiment, however your argument is based around the hope that the weapons which are keeping us safe right now will never be used in war. — Tzeentch

You cannot argue surely that nuclear weapons did not avert WW3? It's an improvement on prior centuries and as the human race evolves and becomes more mature, we can let go of these weapons.