“There is of course the other attitude that I would call nature worship. Since nature contains both beauty and cruelty, it is permissible to pursue both. The criminal in this case seems to have pursued both, using murder to pursue sexual gratification.”
This is truly the most disturbing and sick thing I’ve ever read on here. In fact, nothing I’ve ever read on FR even comes close to this. This is an example of the types of things I’ve read on liberal forums where they love and defend vicious, cruel murderers. The criminal just pursuing both “beauty and cruelty” and since “nature contains both beauty and cruelty, it is permissible to pursue both”.
Since you did not put any distance between your own positions and the one you call “nature worship”, which any decent person would do in no uncertain terms, then I think you have some explaining to do.
Amazing to think that so many "respectable" men were involved - they share some responsibility for these atrocities.
This is certainly a reminder that this is a fallen world.
That is a false conclusion on your part. I didn't state my position because I thought it would be obvious from the three attitudes I listed. The first was stoic, Buddhist, or Manichean. It is a rejection of life because all is evil and suffering. Is that your position? It sounds like it from your original comment. But perhaps you only gave vent to some momentary feeling of disgust at a brutal crime.
The second I called nature worship because it pursues beauty and cruelty together. That not only covers this criminal's behavior, but is a sort of warning to any simplistic attitude that claims it can pursue only the beauty of nature without at some point making a claim on cruelty as well. Nature is a beautiful and at the same time a very cruel mistress.
I think there is something brilliant in the Aristotelian point of view. Nature is not perfect. It is subject to decay, corruption, and death, but its source is from perfection. And it has the potential for perfection. Perfection is nature's goal or end. That is why life is not simply meaningless change or flux.
A person can embrace whichever attitude he finds most convincing. Life is a matter of free choice. That also comes with Aristotle. That is why people are responsible for there actions. But then a determinist would say there is no choice at all, and no one is responsible for their actions. It seems to me that this determinist idea goes along with nature worship.
If you are still unclear what my position is, let me state it explicitly. I am not a determinist. And no, I do not believe in Karma. I am not a Buddhist either. I stand on the side of Aristotle (and on the milder side of his teacher Plato.)