Ghost Writer
17th June 2003, 09:23
I was reading RAM's signature, when I thought to myself that his assertion can not go unchallenged. It appeared as if RAM was actually trying to excuse man'sl evil by pointing to nature. The following is RAM's signature, and my response to what I believe is wrong.
"I would think that man would find natural evil worse then moral evil as it is not in our control. All we can do is prevent or reduce the effects. Only being able to prevent the effects of natural evil is a lot worse because none of it can be prevented. "
I would think that man would find moral evil worse, since it is clearly the act of deliberation. Besides, how can natural events, not controled by some entity be considered evil? Misfortunate, yes. I think that the classification of natural disasters as evil is a misnomer. In order for one to attach the word evil to an event, it must have been caused by the intention of doing harm, or causing great suffering.
Natural evil is a set of words that I despise. It suggests that man has no ability to intervene with the natural course of events, and that humankind is at the mercy of a sadistic god. It requires the kind of humble, and subservient approach to life that the fundamentalist religions ask of their followers. Therefore, by applying this term we create greater potential for moral evil, by helping to perpetuate an oppressive worldview that has a way of generating the mass hysteria known to cause great suffering.
In addition, I am fairly certain that if we were to actually compared moral evil and natural disasters against each other, we would find that man's evil often has an artificial quality with a more shocking and ghastly face to it. Things like the Final Solution, suicide bombings, the gulags, and world wars can generate death tolls that even nature will be hard pressed to rival.
To say that natural evil can not be averted shows ignorance. Technology, such as; vaccinations, genetically engineered foods, weather modification, modern architecture, levee systems, insecticide, and space exploration, contradicts this claim. As we advance as a species, and as master of our domain we develop tools that readily combat the natural world's powerful forces. In fact, we often use this destructive energy to enhance the lives of millions. As our observation of the world increases, so too does the experimental science that allows for direct intervention.
Scarier than the natural world around us, is man's potential to take the various tools mentioned above, and apply them toward great evil. The Total Information Awareness Project, the atomic bomb, biological and chemical warfare, and some applications of nanotechnology are excellent examples of this point. It's true that the world has ebbed when it comes to man vs. man violence. However, instabilities in certain areas lead to this question. How long wil it take before the fail-safes we have created dissolve, and the relative peace is shatter to such an extent we enter a new era in human evil, an era where evil exists in greater proportions than those demonstrated by last century's great wars? And what effect will the exponential rate at which we are able to gain power over our environment have on the outcome?
"I would think that man would find natural evil worse then moral evil as it is not in our control. All we can do is prevent or reduce the effects. Only being able to prevent the effects of natural evil is a lot worse because none of it can be prevented. "
I would think that man would find moral evil worse, since it is clearly the act of deliberation. Besides, how can natural events, not controled by some entity be considered evil? Misfortunate, yes. I think that the classification of natural disasters as evil is a misnomer. In order for one to attach the word evil to an event, it must have been caused by the intention of doing harm, or causing great suffering.
Natural evil is a set of words that I despise. It suggests that man has no ability to intervene with the natural course of events, and that humankind is at the mercy of a sadistic god. It requires the kind of humble, and subservient approach to life that the fundamentalist religions ask of their followers. Therefore, by applying this term we create greater potential for moral evil, by helping to perpetuate an oppressive worldview that has a way of generating the mass hysteria known to cause great suffering.
In addition, I am fairly certain that if we were to actually compared moral evil and natural disasters against each other, we would find that man's evil often has an artificial quality with a more shocking and ghastly face to it. Things like the Final Solution, suicide bombings, the gulags, and world wars can generate death tolls that even nature will be hard pressed to rival.
To say that natural evil can not be averted shows ignorance. Technology, such as; vaccinations, genetically engineered foods, weather modification, modern architecture, levee systems, insecticide, and space exploration, contradicts this claim. As we advance as a species, and as master of our domain we develop tools that readily combat the natural world's powerful forces. In fact, we often use this destructive energy to enhance the lives of millions. As our observation of the world increases, so too does the experimental science that allows for direct intervention.
Scarier than the natural world around us, is man's potential to take the various tools mentioned above, and apply them toward great evil. The Total Information Awareness Project, the atomic bomb, biological and chemical warfare, and some applications of nanotechnology are excellent examples of this point. It's true that the world has ebbed when it comes to man vs. man violence. However, instabilities in certain areas lead to this question. How long wil it take before the fail-safes we have created dissolve, and the relative peace is shatter to such an extent we enter a new era in human evil, an era where evil exists in greater proportions than those demonstrated by last century's great wars? And what effect will the exponential rate at which we are able to gain power over our environment have on the outcome?