From a materialist standpoint that is absolutely correct.
Again, this is absolutely correct. This is also the doctrine, perfectly stated, of might makes right. By this same standard there is no logical consistency in saying Hitler was wrong for incinerating homosexuals or that the antebellum US was wrong for codifying chattel slavery. You cannot even say that they should not have done these things. Genocide and slavery in both of these cases where norms of the culture at the time and fully supported by the law and the leaders. That would be a perfect definition of your "human construct" definition of morality. By your definition, slavery was 'moral'. If you can live with that reality, and it IS the reality of materialism then you are an honest, thoughtful, logically consistent materialist. But as soon as you suggest that someone else ought to do something then you are no longer logically consistent. As soon as you suggest that slavery is always wrong and always to be proscribed you are no longer being logically consistent. The destructive and avaricious, the hateful and the violent are as correct and proper in their attitudes and actions as the environmentalist or the civil rights advocate.
Likewise, if you say I should protect the planet, you are logically inconsistent. If you say I must protect the planet and make me do so at the threat of violence (the only real teeth of any law) then might-makes-right is your belief structure.
I'm glad you understand this. I'm sad that it seems okay to you or anyone else because by this standard neither evil or good exist.
That statement does not follow logically and I don't understand what you are trying to say. Even the existence of a morally binding and transcendent moral code does not mean that it is followed. That does not impune the moral in any way. It simply proves that evil exists.
Perhaps the problem with such an argument is the failure to understand at a fundamental level the definition of what is wrong. How do we ultimately determine what is wrong, or what is right?
I would suggest that what is right, and therefore moral, is any set of behaviours and attitudes that results in an over all benefit to a particular species, allowing it to proliferate and prosper, and that what is wrong, and therefore immoral, is any set of attitudes and behaviour patterns that have the opposite effect of diminishing the survival potential of a species, or subspecies, or nation or group.
Since the effects of our actions are very complex and have ramifications many years later, those actions that are in fact wrong and immoral at the present time are not always perceived and understood to be wrong because of the attraction of the immediate benefits that might flow to the group, nation or individuals who engage in the wrong and immoral conduct.
Devising a set of moral codes, such as the Ten Commandments, is a practical attempt by the 'presumably wiser' leaders of a society at the time, to prevent people from unwittingly engaging in behaviour which those wise leaders, or advisors, think might have harmful consequences for themselves and their society at some time in the future.
Unfortunately, what is right or wrong, and moral or immoral, is often dependent upon the circumstances of the times. Circumstances are always changing. Those societies that cling on to moral codes that have become out-dated and irrelevant in a modern context, or any sudden change in circumstances, tend to suffer the consequences.
I have no problem with the basic concept of a change in paradigm from the use of fossil fuels to other more sustainable and potentially cleaner forms of energy. Eventually, we will all benefit, provided those alternative energy sources such as solar power are potentially more efficient than gas and coal, after taking all the additional costs of adequate emission controls for fossil fuels into consideration, and the external costs of the health consequences of the burning of fossil fuels in the absence of adequate emission controls, and so on.
The problems as I see them relate to the religious aspects associated with the dangers of CO2. The so-called 'consensus of scientific opinion' on the issue seems to have taken on the role of an Almighty God, in the minds of the scientific illiterates.
Those who have a good understanding of the scientific methodology and the problems of uncertainty whenever an issue is complex with countless variables, elements of chaos, and long time-scales involved before any effect can be observed, understand that any certainty on such issues is likely to be a fabrication.
The danger of blindly following the recommendations of these new gods is that we might falsely imagine that spending huge sums of money on renewable energy in order to reduce CO2 levels, will have certain beneficial effects, such as reducing the intensity of floods and storms, and therefore, as a consequence, we might not spend sufficient resources on protecting ourselves from the recurrence of natural, extreme weather events that are not related to human emissions of CO2.
Here's an example of such an extreme weather event that one cannot attribute to rising CO2 levels, as reported by Scientific American.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atmospheric-rivers-california-megaflood-lessons-from-forgotten-catastrophe/"A 43-day storm that began in December 1861 put central and southern California underwater for up to six months, and it could happen again.
Geologic evidence shows that truly massive floods, caused by rainfall alone, have occurred in California every 100 to 200 years. Such floods are likely caused by atmospheric rivers: narrow bands of water vapor about a mile above the ocean that extend for thousands of kilometers.
In 1861, farmers and ranchers were praying for rain after two exceptionally dry decades. In December their prayers were answered with a vengeance, as a series of monstrous Pacific storms slammed—one after another—into the West coast of North America, from Mexico to Canada. The storms produced the most violent flooding residents had ever seen, before or since."Have I made a good case for my pragmatism, George?
