playing god is often said if anyone steps in and changes the course of an event in the natural world, e.g.cub given lifesaving treatment for festering wound, etc. But isnt it really the reverse? That is, god does nothing, just leaves it, so by actually doing something is NOT being god, we're being humane, a human? And if 'god' not able to do anything physically himself gives us the impetus to do something/gave us the free will to decide ?
2006-09-29 07:27:33 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
good, sophist - you become a part of the events going on, call it luck or chain reaction of a situation, or anything else, you are as much a part of it as the floating leaf or twig in a stream that a bee or ant clings to at the right time in a chain of events.
2006-09-29 07:38:07 · update #1
some very well thought out answers here, thought provoking and others pure gentleness. Great stuff!
2006-09-29 09:58:10 · update #2
very good points Blasphemi..Bael, I'm more interested in individual acts and not an entire species where I actually condemn man's interference
2006-09-29 10:45:47 · update #3
more good points and very true laphroaig!
2006-09-30 00:25:00 · update #4
Pinkposs - yet another, different slant, and an excellent one at that!
2006-09-30 00:53:10 · update #5
do you know about determinism? maybe the cub was meant to be saved, it was a pre-determined fact that it would be. a religious person might explain that pre-determination as god's will, but the theory doesn't have to involve god.
the problem with determinism is that it takes away an individual's responsibility for their actions. the alternative is indeterminism though. if nothing at all is determined, does that mean everything is entirely random? surely that would also take away an individual's responsibility for their actions.
you could say that the desire to intervene is an animal instinct and we're therefore not 'playing god'/ changing the course of events/ upsetting any balance. instead we're a part of the wildlife scene you describe rather than an outsider forcing our way into it. why the assumption that humans don't have strong, base urges, just because we're more intelligent?
in summary, i guess my point is that regardless of whether you're a determinist or an indeterminist, are wildlife and humans alike not subject to the same forces? why differentiate between the two?
2006-09-29 22:59:18 · answer #1 · answered by PinkPoss 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you mean stepping in and saving one individual animal, like a bear cub hit by a car, then that's not playing god, just playing good samaritan. However if you mean humans using science to step in and save an entire species from extinction, or introducing species of animals or insects to a part of the world where they are not meant to be, then yes that is playing god and we are already suffering some very bad consequences for all the times we've done that. In the grander scheme of things, free will and fate, perhaps this is all meant to be even if it leads to the untimely destruction of the planet. However, in the real world of the inarguably consequential, nature has a VERY delicate balance, and , like it or not, we need nature to survive.
2006-09-29 10:27:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am surprised that so many answerers do not consider humans and their interaction with other species to be part of nature, and even suggest that we are interfering with nature, when the majority are happy to accept the theory that we evolved from apes - and are therefore part of nature - such hypocrisy.
If we were not part of nature that would make us gods, I'm sure that I'm not a god.
Mankind is unique in having the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong. The normal reaction to a creature suffering is to try to help it, to see a creature suffering and to do nothing is not actually normal but it happens. To help the creature would not be interfering with nature, to not help the creature would also be not interfering with nature.
This was a horrible question because there is no 'right' answer
2006-09-29 09:20:12 · answer #3 · answered by Gone 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The sad thing abut intervention is consequence. For if we saved the prey we are condeming the predator and the predators pack to death from starvation. If we choice to ignore it then the prey dies but the predators pack is saved. So what should be choose, death will occur anyway, that is the natural cycle, that is how it should be, so I say allow to happen what protects the many.
What is in the interests of the great. The loss of one life to save 10 is harsh but a reality even people have to make everyday. Tell me would you die to save 1 another, 5 people, 10 people, 50...100...1000. At what point does your life become acceptable to you as being expendable.
2006-09-29 09:40:18 · answer #4 · answered by Emma O 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it is through a condition caused by humans ie: spider in the bath or a moth falling into a candle light I would give my all to save that creature. All creatures are amazing in complexity, what we sometimes forget. Live itself , any, is a miracle and should be treated as so. To kill to eat or to let nature take its course is natural, it is lack of respect for what a wondrous universe we live in and what odds there is on us being here in the 1st place. I have studied science at university level, and the more I delve into anything the more complex it becomes and makes you think of some intellegent design behind everything.
2006-09-29 08:12:49 · answer #5 · answered by marinyshka 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The problem is, nature has been doing fine without our help for a long time. Only since humans arrived have we managed to mess up the delicate balance that nature once preserved. It may seem uncaring at first glance but humans, with all the best intentions, still have their good deeds undone by other humans. You save one cub from dying, someone else killed hundreds of them just to make some clothes. Let nature do what it has been doing for years and let us just observe.
2006-09-29 07:43:00 · answer #6 · answered by Raide UK 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not only a religious question
an ethics problem
compassion/ indifference
man as the dominant, superior life/ man as a part of the whole
a quantum physics problem
a behavioral science question
the philosopher Nietzsche said...[to paraphrase]
' remember, when you are staring into the abyss, it is staring back at you'
Klinghammer [animal behaviorist] said that the fact that you are observing the behavior of animals, changes the behavior...
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle implies that the observation/measurement at the quantum level affects the discernible results
there is an old adage that says that there is good and bad in all things....living is a constant source of conflicting forces....
2006-09-29 08:50:18 · answer #7 · answered by Gemelli2 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're being human.
I don't think I'd be able to film wildlife without intervening. If it's a predator after a prey... well, the predator has to survive too. But if an animal is stuck in a mudhole or something misfortunate like that, I'd have to help or I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
2006-09-29 07:38:01 · answer #8 · answered by willow oak 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is a conflict of morals and ethics. Ethically you should do nothing you are there as an observer only. Pain and death are a part of what you observe. Morally you feel guilty about not acting. However, if you act, you are no longer apart but a part of the scene and must take whatever consequences that arise.
2006-09-29 07:33:44 · answer #9 · answered by Sophist 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Quantum physics suggests that by merely observing something, you are altering its existence. A strange concept, but one clutched on to by many Einstein wannabe's.
To "play god" you would have had to create the creature.
To be human is to "choose" whether you would come to its aid, or let it die.
My own spiritual sense suggests to me that because of the human abilities, conscience and ability to choose, we can be a conduit for the "will of the universe"/God.
2006-09-29 07:41:25 · answer #10 · answered by Gonzo 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋