Is it wrong to kill bugs?

[Pjoo]

Originally Posted by Jess

In all seriousness, the thing that should be considered wrong is for anyone to enjoy killing anything that has life. Life itself should be respected for what it is. That said everything that has been commented should be taken in consideration.

I don't see how it can be considered morally wrong to like something. It's just fact, and considering facts morally wrong only leads to guilt and people not accepting themselves.
Ethics answers to question "what should one do?", and "one should not like to kill stuff" just is stupid.

I don't think killing bugs is wrong, as I believe in ethical naturalism/evolutionary ethics, basically, choices that fulfill human needs are morally good, because it leads to human race surviving longer on the long run, and that moral compass of what is good and evil is shaped by evolution. So as long as it's not "bug genocide", I don't think it's moral evil if it serves atleast some point.

[CFHollister]

Originally Posted by Pjoo

I don't think killing bugs is wrong, as I believe in ethical naturalism/evolutionary ethics, basically, choices that fulfill human needs are morally good, because it leads to human race surviving longer on the long run, and that moral compass of what is good and evil is shaped by evolution. So as long as it's not "bug genocide", I don't think it's moral evil if it serves atleast some point.

I don't think evolution could ever form the basis of any valid ethical viewpoint. Mainly because evolution is a process driven by natural adaptation to essentially chaotic changes in environment... It's a far cry from a rational (requiring thought) process, and certainly not directed by free will (one entity cannot not choose the vast majority or things which induce evolution-initiating change: continental drift, volcanism, orbital instabilities, collision of planetary bodies, etc., ad nauseam).

Ethics by its very nature assumes free will and either prescribes ethical actions or attitudes, or evaluates past actions or attitudes which are necessarily the result of choices made by an agent with free will.

Essentially it is impossible to define an ethical position based on a process that is just random/chaotic events and the results as determined by deterministic natural laws working in complex counterplay. Chaotic/random events are not free will. Determined events are not free will. There is no such thing as ethics (in any meaningful way) without free will. Therefore ethics based on evolution is fundamentally not possible.

What you actually briefly describe is actually a variant of Utilitarianism, in which you define the "greater good" as "human needs" or "human survival." Evolution really has very little to do with it.

Events that occur as a result of evolution can never be 'wrong'; but they can never be 'right' either. They simply do not fall under the jurisdiction of of any valid construction of ethics. The willful actions of human beings, whatever their ethical viewpoint may be (valid or not), however, certainly do.

[jung_adore_ALIZEE]

Originally Posted by Jess

In all seriousness, the thing that should be considered wrong is for anyone to enjoy killing anything that has life. Life itself should be respected for what it is. That said everything that has been commented should be taken in consideration.

I must say I do hunt deer and other animals every year (which usually involves killing said animal), and I just so happen to enjoy it not saying I don't use what I kill but I do enjoy it I wouldn't do it if I didn't enjoy it actually

not sure it's the actual kill rather then the pursuit

[Pjoo]

Originally Posted by CFHollister

I don't think evolution could ever form the basis of any valid ethical viewpoint. Mainly because evolution is a process driven by natural adaptation to essentially chaotic changes in environment... It's a far cry from a rational (requiring thought) process, and certainly not directed by free will (one entity cannot not choose the vast majority or things which induce evolution-initiating change: continental drift, volcanism, orbital instabilities, collision of planetary bodies, etc., ad nauseam).

Ethics by its very nature assumes free will and either prescribes ethical actions or attitudes, or evaluates past actions or attitudes which are necessarily the result of choices made by an agent with free will.

Essentially it is impossible to define an ethical position based on a process that is just random/chaotic events and the results as determined by deterministic natural laws working in complex counterplay. Chaotic/random events are not free will. Determined events are not free will. There is no such thing as ethics (in any meaningful way) without free will. Therefore ethics based on evolution is fundamentally not possible.

What you actually briefly describe is actually a variant of Utilitarianism, in which you define the "greater good" as "human needs" or "human survival." Evolution really has very little to do with it.

Events that occur as a result of evolution can never be 'wrong'; but they can never be 'right' either. They simply do not fall under the jurisdiction of of any valid construction of ethics. The willful actions of human beings, whatever their ethical viewpoint may be (valid or not), however, certainly do.

Well, Natural Selection would favour people who do not kill eachother and people who consider other's needs, as it would increase chance of the "cousin genes" reproducing. Because well, basic human needs, such as food and safety are required for reproducing.
Kinda like Piranhas don't eat each other, because they live in groups with close biological relations. Pirahna killing another would reduce ammount of his genes in the pack and so natural selection would favour pirahna-packs that do not kill eachother.

Evolution affects how much we require safety, how much we gain pleasure from altruism etc. and all that affects what could be considered right or wrong.

And yeah, it's Utilitarianism.

Free will is not required for Ethics, with Hard Determinism, question "what should one do(to fulfill more human needs)?""What would good person do in this situation?" is still answerable. Person does the choice based on person's hereditary predispositions and environmental effects and events, and the person either does the right or the wrong thing. There no choice, but there still is other options that might be better.

Ok, maybe Im just stupid and reject moral nihilism, but well, I to me it makes sense that something is wrong or not, based on objective features of the world.

[TheBarrett]

Okay, i'm an advocate for good speech filled with decent intelligence, but seriously.

Bugs, they're annoying you/threatening to destroy your fathomable existence, you end them (if you can catch them). They're not annoying you, leave them alone, obviously if it was in your position it wouldn't want to be annoyed as well (but they can do less about it if you choose to).

Case closed, in the AmazingAtheist Forums this would go under the enjoyable but idiotic "Debate Stupid Shit" section. The responses are of a more stupid caliber than the ones here, but seriously, insects are insects, they're life forms, we share the earth (unfortunately we're taking a bit more of the cake).

[Pjoo]

Originally Posted by TheBarrett

Okay, i'm an advocate for good speech filled with decent intelligence, but seriously.

Bugs, they're annoying you/threatening to destroy your fathomable existence, you end them (if you can catch them). They're not annoying you, leave them alone, obviously if it was in your position it wouldn't want to be annoyed as well (but they can do less about it if you choose to).

Case closed, in the AmazingAtheist Forums this would go under the enjoyable but idiotic "Debate Stupid Shit" section. The responses are of a more stupid caliber than the ones here, but seriously, insects are insects, they're life forms, we share the earth (unfortunately we're taking a bit more of the cake).

Point in this "debate stupid ethics shit" is that you actually come up with rational reason why insects, that are life form, have less right to live. Cause well, if you just go around with argument "they are annoying", might aswell start killing rappers too.
Sure, I feel that killing rappers would be bad, but it's just subjective thought quite a many people share.

[Toc De Mac]

I never kill bugs anymore. I used to when I was a child, but now am disgusted by the idea of doing so.

Now I just take them outside.

[jung_adore_ALIZEE]

Originally Posted by Pjoo

might aswell start killing rappers too.

Why didn't we think of this sooner? I'm liking the way you're thinking there anyone know when we'll start???

[wasabi622]

Originally Posted by Pjoo

Cause well, if you just go around with argument "they are annoying", might aswell start killing rappers too.
Sure, I feel that killing rappers would be bad, but it's just subjective thought quite a many people share.

don't say that! than the pink fans annoyed by Alizee might get the idea to kill Alizee!

and that, my friends, would result in a killing spree followed by suicide.

[Future Raptor Ace]

Wow only 3 people agree with me! I have a lot of reading to do so I can catch up
Edit: my point is I think people should think twice before killing incests. I see people who kill flies no where near them just because they can and I feel that is and should be considered morally wrong! Or what about when you see a spider on your window in your house, its not bothering you but instead just chilling on your window and instead of trying to help it out most people just kill it; that is wrong!