(May 4, 2015 at 2:46 pm)AdamLOV Wrote: It is highly debatable whether there is such a thing as essence. Even if there is essence, following the logic of essentialism, it belongs to the essence of the virus to destroy fellow beings. Should that mean that we accept the good of the virus? The natural essence of one being can often result in the disruption, even destruction of other creatures. Any restriction of the virus would be an egregious restriction of the "virus' potential". This absurd example highlights the fact that an ethics based on essence is no better than one predicated on complete relativism. Unless, of course, one complements this essentialism with a hierarchy as Plato did. But hierarchial ontologies are deeply problematic, for reasons I shall not elaborate here.
The purpose of scientific inquiry is to understand the nature of the things we observe. Without essences you don't get very far.
Your example misses the point entirely. That which is good for the virus is not the same as what is good for people. So while the nature of the virus is to propagate, to the extent that they are harmful, it is in human nature to resist and conquer. It is in the lion's nature to hunt gazelles. That is good for the lion, but not so good for gazelles. It is in the nature of the gazelle to flee in a herd. There is no relativism because both are acting on the same principle, i.e. to live according to their nature. That these natures are in conflict has no bearing.
