Nonmoral might be a word that Stephen Jay Gould used to be able to define or at least describe the acts of nature. Indeed in his article ‘Nonmoral Nature’ he stressed that the possibility of the existence of a Universal Good outweighs every detailed morality that now exist. He further argued that this Universal Good might still be incomprehensible for us humans, but this cannot prove its inexistence as well.
As the article would like to point into the ‘beneficence of God among his creation’ it takes into consideration the specific acts in nature that proves to be ruthless, selfish and evil. Such details were manifested in the relationship between lion and lambs, ichneumon larvae preying on caterpillars and so on. The term is also used by Gould to refer to the state wherein the concepts of right and the wrong do not exist. What exists is the universal design that proves to move towards goodness that is necessary for the existence of balance in nature.Such balance is necessary for all other creature to continue their existence. In the specific example of ichneumon and caterpillar, predation is necessary for the ichneumon to continue, such primary rule in nature might defy the usual conception of God as benevolent creator however by making nature nonmoral it also create human eating other living things also nonmoral.
Thus nonmoral might also represent that morality especially human perception of morality does not apply or is not applicable to nature.Nonmoral simply suggest that the human laws of ethics does not and cannot be applied to nature in general. Since humans continue to look at the whole creation of God as a basis for his benevolence, such defense can only be adequate to explain that humans cannot understand the goodness in the specific details because they are still ignorant of God’s purpose. To call the nature’s actions as evil, as can be concluded from Gould’s article, is wrong since such term is not applicable for nature.
