Moral questions for atheists

1) I think there's value and beauty in nature (particularly things that are "wonders" like that), so I'd say it shouldn't be destroyed unless there's a good reason for it.

2) See 1). I guess that's a good reason. But again, that's rather ambiguous.

3) If no person would ever see it either way, why bother going through the effort of destroying it?

4) Nope.

But, I'm probably somewhere between agnostic and atheist. Though I don't understand what this has to do with atheism to be honest. o_o

 

I don't really understand the question. I need a clearer definition of "non-biological natural wonder." Old Faithful may be an example of one, but it doesn't tell me what about it makes it a "wonder."

 

Would it be wrong to destroy a non-biological natural wonder such as Old Faithful?
There is no reason to destroy it, so why?
What if destroying it would make a large number of people better off?
Depends on the reason. If its to make more land for malls and crap like that, no.
What if no person would ever see it again either way?
Sucks, but if its necessary to get rid of it, tough luck.
Were your initial “gut” reactions to these questions different than the ones you ended up giving?
No.

 

First of all, I was just trying to understand how atheism and Old Faithful are related topics... Anyways, to answer your questions:

Would it be wrong to destroy a non-biological natural wonder such as Old Faithful? Yes. We need to conserve the environment we have now so our future generations will have a healthy place to live.

What if destroying it would make a large number of people better off? Depends on just what you mean by, 'better off'... and how many people you define as a 'large number'.

What if no person would ever see it again either way? I've never seen it. I'd be okay never seeing it. I'm not an outdoors person. So, I don't care, personally.

Were your initial "gut" reactions to these questions different than the ones you ended up giving? Not really. My head tells me things. My gut doesn't.

 

I think I see the metaphor here, but I'm not gonna fall into the trap. Although I don't really care much if landmarks are destroyed.

 

No, it doesn't. Unique, as a property applied to geology, astronomy, and cosmology either applies to everything or to nothing. All horses are alike, but no two gingerbread men are alike, as one philosopher put it.

 

You can't answer moral questions without context. Determining what is more moral can only be done when you can compare it with an alternative action. There aren't any moral absolutes.

 

The only utility in Old Faithful is the beauty people find in it. (Although I could read some article in Nature about how it's critical to the local ecosystem.) Therefore, unless it would make a lot of people better off by destroying it, I think that the utility its beauty provides would make it rather profane to do so. My requirement is not just that it would have to make people better off, but it would have to make unhappy people better off, not already-happy ones better off. So it would have to bring a lot of free or low cost energy to the poor in order for that to be worth it. This is of course speaking in hypotheticals.

As a practical matter, I don't think that a good argument can be made for destroying it.

Please understand, Dan, that I am not interested in having to answer arguments like "moral disagreement disproves universal value outside of religious frameworks." While I will vigorously do so, I feel like it's one likely to cause hurt feelings, and we don't want that. Atheists come from various philosophical traditions, including beliefs in moral cognitivist and moral realist meta-ethical positions.

 

I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but this still doesn't help me. Natural forces tend to produce similar phenomena. The only way for a unique feature under this definition would be one that resulted from an extremely rare phenomenon. The only one that comes to mind is the meteorite (or comet, can't remember ) impact that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

But the crater is a) huge and b) mostly buried. A really cool series of caves resulted from the impact, but since there are so many of them, they could hardly be called unique unless taken in their entirety. At that point we're talking about the destruction of massive ecological units, the removal of which would be highly damaging for the animals and humans who need the unit to survive and, as such, would be immoral.

 

Would it be wrong to destroy a non-biological natural wonder such as Old Faithful?

- Depends on the reason, if it's a good one then let it fall I guess.

What if destroying it would make a large number of people better off?

- Living people > inanimate objects.

What if no person would ever see it again either way?

- We'd lose a learning experience but I don't think it's that big of a deal; it's my opinion.

Were your initial “gut” reactions to these questions different than the ones you ended up giving?

- No not really, at first it's "why would you need to do that?" but I'd value a single person's life over every single one of the 7 wonders of the world.

 

i need more information, this is all too vague for me to answer meaningfully

 

1) I wouldn't call it "wrong" but I still don't think you should do it.
2) Significantly better off? Sure, blow it up. I'm taking an econ class right now and am learning about Marginal Cost and Marginal Benefit, and Natural Phenomena have more benefits than you would think (creating lots of tourism), so it would have to be a pretty big benefit.
3) Then I don't really care about it. If no one will see it then get rid of it.
4) #2 I thought about for a minutes, but my responses stayed consistent. The only thing I would say is I can really weigh the pros and cons without specifics.

 

Old Faithful is a geyser and Matterhorn is a mountain. Neither of those phenomena are rare. What makes them special is purely that humans see patterns in them: Old Faithful was believed to go off once an hour (it actually doesn't), and Matterhorn's four sides happen to align with the compass rose.

As such, I don't see destroying either Old Faithful or Matterhorn as any morally different from destroying any geyser or mountain.

 

Would it be wrong to destroy a non-biological natural wonder such as Old Faithful? Yes, because pointless destruction of nature (particularly beauty) is stupid. Plus the fact that it would reduce the local tourist economy and damage the local ecosystem.

What if destroying it would make a large number of people better off?
Depends what you mean by better off. If you mean that if a magnificent cliff face has to be bombed in a controlled manner because in the next earthquake it will destroy a small town, then I suppose then it should be done. If the same cliff face has to be blown apart to siphon an oil reserve below it.

What if no person would ever see it again either way?
I don't really see what the question is here. If the wonder poses a direct threat, or its destruction is a necessary event for the greater good of society, then practicality should overrule wonder. If its destruction is pointless or for commercialism that is unnecessary and could be done somewhere else, then it should remain.

Were your initial “gut” reactions to these questions different than the ones you ended up giving?
No.

~~~~~~~~~~

I fail to see how this is really a moral question, or how it applies specifically to atheists.