Ted Mosquin wrote
[snip]
> Ethics always posits a value system, and to ecocentric ethicists
> the central value
> is Earth with its ecosystems and all their contents including
> people. All have
> intrinsic values but humans are not to be privileged over
> everything else. In other
> words, we don't have the God-given right to destroy ecosystems and their
> organic/inorganic contents.
CP: Agree
Ted immediately follows with:
So the over-riding concern, the
> ethical imperative is
> "to preserve all the parts" in Leopold's words. When people
> sincerely act toward
> that goal, even if they are mistaken in the means (as reported in
> the ivory ban) it
> seems to me that they are acting ethically.
CP: strongly disagree to ethics being defined by intent (remember Kant's
axeman and the imperative of telling the truth always). I cannot accept
that an action which CONSEQUENTIALLY does harm - through a foundation in
false beliefs (whether pop-ecology, rascism, etc) - IRRESPECTIVE of the
INTENT of the actor - is "ethical". Intentions don't make you right. The
road to hell is paved with them, especially those performed by zealots who
don't stop to examine their beliefs. In the case of environmentalism, these
unexamined beliefs keep coming back in my view to an examination of ecology,
and to an examination of the human environmental history - ie the
culture/nature nexus.
Take an example. X think Y is a child molester and an axe murderer who
tortures his victims before killing them. X wants to prevent other victims
being harmed, and so kills Y. No trial. No examination of beliefs. Just
swift "justice". His intent is to save people. Perhaps he kills an
innocent person.
You also quote Leopold out of context. His is a functional view of nature,
not a structural view - and he was quite happy to see humans as a part of
the environment, including "harvesting". But while doing it (tinkering) it
is a wise to keep all the parts.
It is this issue of MEANS that is at the core of environmental debates. I
believe environmentalists - largely - have similar ends: to protect the
environment from harm. The problem comes because people have different
views on harm, and from their base premises pursue different means. The
means can be right or wrong (imo) in terms of achieving their desired end.
The static structuralist may see change as "harmful" (some do) - or perhaps
relates at an individual plant and animal level rather than with any
perspective on functions over space and time. An opposing perspective may
view (understand?) change as nature's way, and disturbance as very much part
of essential processes. Human "harvest" (I use your curious quotes) does
not NECESSARILY involve harm. The question is - who is right? The first
group stops elephant "harvesting". The second is more accepting.
I am in the second group, and I consider myself very close to Leopold and
Berry - who take an ecocentric view, but include humans as very much part of
things.
Chris Perley
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|