Thank God

But, how do we balance the Personal feelings of loss with the larger ethical global benefits?

For, if we value every single human life then it is only ethical to mourn deeply that one person is killed, by whatever means.

Yet, if we were to have our ethical desires, we would eventually have to come to terms with a future that is basically all technology and no nature. Which is totally possible.

It seems we can’t have the best of both worlds. But it does seem that human beings, regardless of the environment, will just view their environment as generically human, which is to say, natural with reference to something that is not natural. 

If we consider the state of our world now compared to 150 years ago, we have to admit that we don’t give one damn shit about it except in as much as we long for some great past goodness.

And I’m sure as our world becomes increasingly less green, and our cities more and more large, we will still have happy families who mourn the loss of someone who dies, say, from some new form of human destruction, or natural destruction for that matter. And these destructions will frame a further human ethical imperative with reference to how it could be or how it could’ve been, in comparison to how terrible our lives on a larger scale really are. All the while still being happy for what we have with no default to some underlying unhappiness.

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s