Ethics is an analysis of morals. Moral etymologically is the study of customs. As custom does not define right and wrong, so ethics seeks right and wrong in customs.
Ethics etymologically means a way of being, but fundamentally it seeks the ideal way of being. The biggest problem is what is right and wrong.
According to the anthropocentrist concept, for man right and wrong are according to his own choice. Which makes both morals and ethics of no less use. Because there is no right and wrong in fact, there is no ethics in fact, and each one decides his morality, on the concept that morality is a custom.
In this way, if morality does not have fixed definitions, then ethics is also a mere story invented for each epoch. As if at one time reality is the story of "Little Red Riding Hood", another time "the three little pigs" and so on.
So, everything will depend on the taste of the majority in a story or another story.
This occurs because the foundation of ethics is directly linked to anthropocentrism, which is an unfounded and variable concept. If something is variable, then it cannot be determined, because once determined, it ceases to be at any moment.
Ethics could only make sense if it were fixed in Naturalism, a system in which definitions are fixed. Once the law of gravity is defined, it remains, it can be improved in precision but never changed in what happens.
For example, the destruction of nature, or the destruction of planet Earth, is based on ethics, which is linked to the analysis of the morals of a people.
And so, anthropologically, nature is considered the servant of man, and therefore man can do with it whatever he wants according to his imaginable needs.
But in Naturalism the imaginative actions of the human being have real physical consequences. Ethics, or morals, have no control over natural laws.
When a flood comes, it's no use telling the winds and rain that they don't follow ethics, and in fact the morals and ethics defined by people, by their actions, promoted the floods.
For the flood is merely a mathematical action of a reaction of beings on nature. In this way, if the flood is not ethical, the fault lies with ethics and morals, which caused such a flood to appear.
A much clearer example is the ethical custom of eating meat. This custom, considered ethical, generates destruction of forests and water sources, increasing the temperature of the planet, and reducing water in the regions.
Thus, when the heat in some regions reaches 50 degrees, this value is ethical and moral, as it was built by ethics and morals.
In this way, every system of suffering generated by climate catastrophes is ethical, as they were built by ethics in society.
If ethics were based on Naturalism, then such things would not have happened, since the ideal of right and wrong would be based on the concept of understanding the phenomena in their totality of terrestrial life. And not merely, on the concept of human taste, that anthropocentrism is based. In fact, ethics and morals have no concept of right and wrong, as anthropocentrism has no foundation in right and wrong.
