Martin Koch

Hon English 102

02/14/05

Final Draft Revised

Nonmoral Nature

In Stephen Jay Gould’s “Nonmoral Nature,” he discusses nature, and the difference between cruelty in animals and humans, and explains how the same moral can not be applied for both. The order in which he presents the different points of view is very important. At the beginning he supports his writing with sources from scientists that are not famous. However, to close out his work, he uses the well-known scientist Darwin to leave a lasting impression on the reader. In this essay, Gould provides both sides of moral in animals as well as humans, and then gives his explanation, then lets the reader decide from his own point of view. According to Gould, morality in nature can be perceived from the existent power, wisdom and goodness of God instead of the no-God thesis of Darwin.  If moral nature is different in animals and humans, and cruelty can not be applied to both at the same time, then a God can exist.

When Reverend Francis Henry died in 1829, he left money to support a series of books by many writers “on how the power, wisdom and goodness of God, [are] manifested in the creation” (474). Gould, as many other writers did, wrote about morals in nature, and how it can not be applied to human morality. The example of the Ichneumon fly or wasp is brought up by many scientists. William Buckland explains how the female locates the appropriate host and converts it into food for the larva, which then grows inside, keeping the host alive, “preserving intact the essential heart and central nervous system. Finally, the larva completes its work and kills its victim” (476). Gould

Join now!

clarifies Darwin’s main theory, that for all the misery in the world, a God can not exist because he would not have created the Ichneumonidea (481).

Furthermore, Gould cites scientists that have a different way of viewing cruelty in nature. Reverend William Kirb focused on the virtue of the mother love that is displayed by provisioning the young with such care (476). Mirvat also makes an argument based on the fact that the suffering of animals is different from the suffering of people. Mirvat states that suffering is connected to the mental condition of the sufferer, that ...

This is a preview of the whole essay