Well, I'm not sure that the discussion of ecology and evolution precludes
ethics, but the history of those sciences has been filled with a debate that
it does or doesn't.
sb
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Adam Gottschalk
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ethics and the species question
P.S.:
on 10/15/00 01:34, Adam Gottschalk at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I do not think that my aiming to consider morality in
> physical terms is in anyway nonsensical or even original or unique.
"Environmental Ethics." In further response to your question, Steven, is a
question: does bringing the "environment" into moral philosophy, or vice
versa, necessitate leaving one or the other aside? The very existence of
this "discipline," this line of thinking, shows that we all who participate
in its consideration are ready to combine questions of morality/immorality
with questions of "environment" (physical). We are ready to acknowledge, I
believe, that the two are inseparable. All consideration of ethics, in the
end, takes place in this place, this physical, uterine
space/time/earth/universe. Why then is discussing "ecological niches" and
physical "normality" leaving aside ethics?
Adam
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|