The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 1:37 pm [Nature cannot be "good" unless "good" is an objective reality.

You may confuse yourself by way of that word ‘good’. Goodness, in Nature, only means that things continue, naturally, as they do and must.

But when you, and we, use the term “good” or “bad” and certainly evil, we can only be referring to human choices in human circumstances.

Nature ‘is’ and, it seems, is neither good nor evil. Shall I take it you agree? Or do you have some counter-position and argument?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 1:37 pm In the world in which there are no objective moral values, neither AJ nor IC have any actual justification to assert either thing.

That is exactly right, IC! In the world of Nature we cannot imposes values that we derive from metaphysical concepts or imperatives. In the world of Nature there are no “objective moral codes” there is though what Nature does. And apparently, evidently, these are ecological and systemic rules or patterns of holistic relationship.

And in that world neither IC or AJ have any justifications to assert that Nature is good or bad/evil. It simply is what it is. I use the term “good” only to say that letting Nature do what it does is good. But not morally or ethically. You do understand, right?

Where then, IC, do the values you as a Christian live by come from?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 3:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 1:37 pm Ironic. You say he "cannot," which suggests your own moral prohibition...because factually, he certainly can. How, then, can you "impose" your "cultural or metaphysical idealism" on man?

Yes, I definitely say “cannot” and that’s not because of moral imperative.

Then in what sense is it true that he "cannot"? He often does, and he certainly is able to do so...so what do you mean?

Yes, man could intervene and attempt to impose an artificial code, however doing so would be disastrous (in the grand scheme of Nature. Do you now understand?

"Disastrous"? Why?

If you call a shark attack an "evil," what harm have you done the shark? And since morals are said not to be objective, why shouldn't you do harm to sharks or to anything else?

You see, the moral sense appears to return, despite all efforts to banish it.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 4:03 pm Where then, IC, do the values you as a Christian live by come from?

Well, I'm a Christian...so that's obvious, isn't it?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 3:53 pm Goodness, in Nature, only means that things continue, naturally, as they do and must.

That's not at all clear. What is the way that nature "must continue"? What promises us "continuation"? Why "must" it happen? And why is it "good," whether one outcome or another happens?

But when you, and we, use the term “good” or “bad” and certainly evil, we can only be referring to human choices in human circumstances.

That's not apparent, either. All "goods" and "bads" are not products of choice, for sure. Maybe you want to suggest our assessments of them might be; but the circumstances themselves are mostly beyond our choices.

Nature ‘is’ and, it seems, is neither good nor evil. Shall I take it you agree? Or do you have some counter-position and argument?

Well, why are you exempting human beings from this rule? Do you regard humans as "not natural," and thus subject to some different rule than other "natural" things? And if the rest of "nature" is amoral, neither good nor evil, why would man be any different?

The sense in which you're using the word "nature" doesn't, at the moment, seem to me to be at all consistent. But maybe you can explain.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 5:57 pm Then in what sense is it true that he "cannot"? He often does, and he certainly is able to do so...so what do you mean?

You might be misunderstanding my use of the word “cannot”. Nature operates according to immutable laws of relationship, i.e. ecological systems. Human moral codes cannot be imposed on these systems of relationship. There is no one who can ask, demand or insist that the shark not kill the seal. The same is true within all natural relationships. Coyote/rabbit, orca/shark, insect/leaf.

Does this require more explanation? If you cannot understand this after a few go-rounds, there is no ‘better’ argument I can produce.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 6:04 pm What is the way that nature "must continue"?

This is not an intelligent question, IC. Nature continues. Planets turn around suns. The biological world (on Earth and one guesses on other life-filled planets) continues in all its ways. It is in that sense I mean “must continue”. There is no alternative.

Can you present one?

AJ wrote:Nature ‘is’ and, it seems, is neither good nor evil. Shall I take it you agree? Or do you have some counter-position and argument?

IC wrote:Well, why are you exempting human beings from this rule? Do you regard humans as "not natural," and thus subject to some different rule than other "natural" things? And if the rest of "nature" is amoral, neither good nor evil, why would man be any different?

I am working to establish a reasonable picture of how ‘we’ might better be able to define and understand “evil”. So, it is required, I think, to get clear about an entire set of things.

I would say the following: I do not exempt humans from the facts that they (we) arise in nature. We are part of it, we are captured by it (enthralled) but we seem to have unique features, especially that we can “see” the System, understand ecology, and the fact that we too are chained into worlds of necessity. We must cultivate plants to live and raise animals to eat. And in this we continue in systems of predation. So, we are ‘ensconced’ in this World, but we are not satisfied with the structure and limitations here.

I regard metaphysics and certainly Christian metaphysics as coming from beyond the world. And in this sense, and I suppose like you, I see this ideal metaphysical revelation as quite common in the religions we might name. But my view is that yes, humans or human moral imperatives are not natural. They are anatural and metaphysical.

You or I or anyone become different to Nature in thousands of ways, and we attempt to model our behavior on such metaphysical rules that separate and distinguish us from Nature and, if you will, enthralled beast.

(I am compelled to mention here that I no longer offer a 48 week email course but something far better and far more intense!)

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 8:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 6:04 pm What is the way that nature "must continue"?

This is not an intelligent question, IC. Nature continues.

If you imagine that, you haven't understood it.

"Does continue" does not mean "must continue". Maybe it will, and maybe it won't. But it isn't obligated to. Nature itself is contingent and entropic, in fact. Species die, and some go extinct. Nature has no opinion about that, and no duty to see that it does or does not happen. We know that the planet itself will die, if nothing about nature is changed, and that the whole universe will end in heat death, the eternal absence of any molecular motion at all. Nature neither knows nor cares that this will happen.

So nature has no "must." At most, all it has is an "is." And even that "is" is continuously changing.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 9:15 pm

AJ wrote:Nature ‘is’ and, it seems, is neither good nor evil. Shall I take it you agree? Or do you have some counter-position and argument?

IC wrote:Well, why are you exempting human beings from this rule? Do you regard humans as "not natural," and thus subject to some different rule than other "natural" things? And if the rest of "nature" is amoral, neither good nor evil, why would man be any different?

I am working to establish a reasonable picture of how ‘we’ might better be able to define and understand “evil”. So, it is required, I think, to get clear about an entire set of things.

I would say the following: I do not exempt humans from the facts that they (we) arise in nature. We are part of it, we are captured by it (enthralled) but we seem to have unique features, especially that we can “see” the System, understand ecology, and the fact that we too are chained into worlds of necessity. We must cultivate plants to live and raise animals to eat. And in this we continue in systems of predation. So, we are ‘ensconced’ in this World, but we are not satisfied with the structure and limitations here.

I'm not seeing how this justifies imposing the idea of morality on mankind, whereas no animals in nature have this burden. Unless you think man is importantly distinct from these animals and the natural world, there's no justification for morality.

But my view is that yes, humans or human moral imperatives are not natural. They are anatural and metaphysical.

So if I understand you correctly, you're now saying that you don't see man as simply another animal, or as simply another feature of the natural world.

I'd have to ask the obvious question, then: in what way do you think man is distinct from animals and from nature?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 10:30 pm So nature has no "must." At most, all it has is an "is." And even that "is" is continuously changing.

And all of that is entirely within the orders of Nature. But for the sake of my points, which I see you likely do not understand, the ecological systems of Nature on our Earth are ecological systems where it is necessary that that shark kill in order to live. Same for the seal: it has no choice but to eat fish and crabs in exactly the same paradigm that you presented with the video of the shark. For you, I gathered (?) this was some sort of terrible injustice to the seal, but what was pictured there is exactly “emblematic” of all life in all ecosystems on this planet: creatures feed onnother creatures. That is Nature’s realm.

And Nature, in the sense that biologists understand, certainly has “musts” but only in the sense of inevitabilities. So I think you are confused by sone of these terms of conventional language usage.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 10:34 pm I'm not seeing how this justifies imposing the idea of morality on mankind, whereas no animals in nature have this burden. Unless you think man is importantly distinct from these animals and the natural world, there's no justification for morality.

Are you saying that the Christian God that you worship and serve is not justified in imposing moral codes on humankind?

Do you believe that the Christian God has also made moral demands on animals other than man?

I think that you have not been following the line of my argumentation. Man is certainly distinct and he is so because he conceives of, or receives impulses from, metaphysical directives outside of Nature.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 10:34 pm So if I understand you correctly, you're now saying that you don't see man as simply another animal, or as simply another feature of the natural world.

Respectfully, IC, are you losing your memory? It is not that I am “now” saying, as if I just developed the position, that man is very much and distinctively unique because he lives in accord with metaphysical concepts that are distinct from Nature.

Man is dual, obviously. He arises in nature like any other animal; he is ensconced in nature and cannot escape his matrix, but he brings into the world concepts (which are metaphysical) and imposes them on himself and others.

This is just not that hard, IC, why are you forcing me to repeat it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 10:34 pm I'd have to ask the obvious question, then: in what way do you think man is distinct from animals and from nature?

The answer is even more obvious, and the question is non-intelligent given that I have repeatedly defined man as “the metaphysical animal”.

Tell me that you’ve finally understood!