Thank you Paul. I elect not to respond to Jamey as her approach only saddens
me. I don't think I'm saying much different from what Paul Shepard, Jose
Ortega y Gassett, and others have said. Welcome to the list.
Steven
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Paul Kirby
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 8:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RE: Ethics of immunocontraception?]
Dear all and especially Jamey Lee West
A new voice.
There is no hypocrisy in making a comparison between exploitative and
custodial relationships as I understand Steve to making such a comparison .
Both speak of a relationship based on separateness from the natural
environment which we are obliged to manage. Since as I see it this
separateness is created by, humankind's unique ability to make moral
judgements Steve's argument therefore falls well within the bounds of
ethical debate.
If we are not separate from the natural environment but part of it what
part of the natural world do we take as the model for our ethical
behaviour ? I am willing to accept that as recently evolved primates we are
the inheritors of some unhelpful behavioural instincts. It is the paradox
of the "part of nature" argument that these behaviours, such as the
enjoyment of hunting, are close to our "natural" self. We have a choice
therefore; to be part of nature (and be in part beastly) or be apart from
and accept dominion over nature. The ethical debate concerns of course how
we excercise this dominion.
Paul Kirby
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|