Tom Regan was not the first to label environmental ethics as Fascist. The
Lyndon LaRoche people http://www.heartland.org/ attacked Aldo Leopold and
his writing as neo-Nazi all during the late 1960s. I just spent a couple of
minutes looking at their site and can't find anything specific about
Leopold, but I did find out that ozone depletion was good for me and that
Animal Rights Terrorists were responsible for most of the world's problems.
I never could figure out if these people were far right or far left, sort of
like other libertarian organizations, if that is what they are, they claim
to be "new era" environmentalists, and populists, at least as far as
property rights are concerned.
This seems to be an issue much the same as logically deducing the number of
angels on the head (or is it the point?) of a pin. I suppose, if you want,
you can draw examples from any social or political or ethical system which
would seem, variously, as communistic, fascist, left, right, conservative,
liberal, and so on. So, my point is; whether you think of an approach as
left, right, fascist, communist, socialistic, democratic, populist, or
whatever: it is either foolish or wise, bad or good, right or wrong (not
left) based on it's own merits, not its similarity to some other system.
sb
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|