Hello Jim,

No need to feel embarrased or ashamed of yourself, Jim, but I have to admit
that I am surprised that you did not recognize a most important issue that
you yourself raised about the time that K.A. Porter was under discussion.
You posted a quote from someone who pointed out the importance of world-view
as a guiding factor informing an ethics.  I've lost the files from that
period so can't quote exactly, may not remember exactly.  Nevertheless, your
quote was very much in tune with my own point of view.  I have tried to
raise that issue several times on different issues since then, but you've
apparently not wanted to follow that line.

Now, consider your first post on this subject, which followed the recent
exchanges on Ayn Rand.

First: an attempt to clarify my First point in response to your post:

The description of Vince Scott in your article was almost that of a
prototypical Randian ideal person.  So strikingly so that it is hard for me
to see how anyone could miss it.  Contrast that image with ways different
groups seem to characterize the "ecoterrorists".  It seems obvious to me
that some intellectual benefit, some contribution to understanding might
come from a study of the mindset of each class: the "Randian" and the
"ecoterrorist".  One does not need to take sides about which is "right" or
"better".  It does seem important to understand both and perhaps find some
kind of amalgam that might be closer to some kind of "ideal" person; some
contribution to understanding the components of the "good life", if there is
such.

I have said here that I do not find the Randian "ideal" very attractive as a
guide to the "good person", the "good life".  At the same time, I don't
think that the "ecoterrorist" view is any better.  But, both might be very
useful models for studying different ways of viewing the world; trying to
understanding consequences that might flow from each.  And we might be able
to abstract from them some guide for the "good life".

Second

When one looks at the different ways of viewing the world, as above, it
seems to me obvious that each view might have very different ways of
defining terrorism.  Both valid within their own idea sets.  An examination
such as above,  might shed light on how terrorism, ecoterrorism might
*legitimately* be defined under certain world view conditions.  After all,
wasn't the Boston tea Party an act of "terrorism" - in *someone's* point of
view?

An examination such as above requires that one suspend one's own value
biases, as well as possible, in order better to understand alternatives and
try to find some minimally-biased conclusion.
-------------

On another, related point:

What is environmental ethics?

For me, it's most fundamental focus is on how we, situated in the world of
2000CE, find a way toward "right living", the "good life" and such notions.
These concerns have been around probably since humans began to think.  It
seems to me that each age has had to address those questions in the context
of their own conditions.

We are no different.  Except, perhaps, in that over the last century there
has been arguably a more dramatic change in our context of conditions that
previously.  I am reminded of Einstein's point: "The unleashed power of the
atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift
toward unparalleled catastrophes."

Some people argue that science and technology have so changed the power of
humans that we have the capacity to change our total environment.  Whether
that view is right or wrong is not the issue, imho.

The issue, to me, is that whether the possibility exists or not, the very
question brings us, imho, face to face with the question of the place of
humans in the environment, the right relationships with our environment.  We
should be examining the very foundations of our several belief systems in
that context; trying to learn more about our own psyche, our own condition
and potential within the great Eco-System.

The problems raised, Jim, in your posts on terrorism tragic as they are,
offer us an example, a impetus for us to search the  fundamentals, the
foundations of enviroethics.  We are distracted from that search when we get
caught up in questions on your examples such as "'tis, 'tisn't", "wrong,
right" etc.  In my view of course.

Hope this is helpful,

Ray
-----------------

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Tantillo" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: ELF, ALF, EarthFirst! and terrorism


> Ray,
>
> >Steve,
> >
> >As usual, you just miss the point completely.  May I suggest that you
read
> >*very carefully*, then *think* before you make comments such as below.
>
> I'm sorry to say then that I must have missed your point just as
> completely.  I think I read your post the same way Steve has read it--for
> example, when you wrote:
>
> >some of those with great intellectual and
> >physical energy have been unable to confront, to deal with, the
> >psychological - spiritual - barreness of the purely material goals that
our
> >USian society has been imposing on ourselves and on the non-western
world.
> >Vince Scott represents that value set,
>
> as if Vince Scott deserved what happened to him.

Ray here:
I do not see how anyone could interpret what I said in the way that you do.
It seems to me that your comment stems from your own mind set, not mine.
---------
>
> I'll admit that my first reaction to this paragraph in particular was
> embarrassment (a bit of shame even) to be reading this on this list.
> Perhaps it would help if you took the time to clarify what you were/are
> saying.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> >Ray
> >--------------
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Steve" <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 6:34 PM
> >Subject: Re: ELF, ALF, EarthFirst! and terrorism
> >
> >
> >> Well I guess I am not that surprised that nobody seems to want to
analyze
> >> the ethics of ELF or ALF.  They terrorized a family, in much the same
way
> >> a home invasion would terrorize a neighborhood.  So far the responses
have
> >> skirted this issue.  Guess what Ray, your dwelling (just as John
Foster's)
> >> damages the environment.  Was your house *always* there?  Is it part of
> >> the natural environment?  Do you have electricity, running water, cable
> >> television.  Think of all that damage.  I think the word we are looking
> >> for here is hypocirsy.
> >>
> >> Frankly the responses have been pretty much of a singular nature.
> >> Pathetic.  Sure Vince Scott and his family may have not considered the
> >> environmental impact of their dream home (or maybe they did, the
article
> >> does point out the mainstream environmentalist had little worries about
> >> the development), but does that justify burning it down and scaring his
> >> children?  And that cryptic threat at the end of the story indicates
that
> >> these guys are nothing but thugs.
> >>
> >> > ...we are compelled to come back to the question of
> >> > just
> >> > what are the characteristics of an ethical, a moral, person.
> >>
> >> Well I guess a moral and ethical person can burn down another's house.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >> =====
> >> "In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe
in
> >a
> >> 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
> >> --Jamey Lee West
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Do You Yahoo!?
> >> Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger.
> >> http://im.yahoo.com/
>




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%