L. Dangutis said:
> To Adam, Steve and others of different views, it would be interesting to
>see where your sources are coming from on this debate of( veganism/
>reduction of meat sources/ evolution context ect.)
Nash, Roderick F. 1989. The Rights of Nature: a History of Environmental
Ethics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press..
Leopold, Aldo. 1949. Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Regan, Tom. 1982. All That Dwell Therein: Animal Rights and Environmental
Ethics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
>what plausible solid arguments could be derived from an ethical
>perspective. If we even consider these points
>in fact, are we not talking a utilitariasm type
>view?
I appreciate this overtly ethical discussion. The paradox is that maybe we
can't develop even a utilitarian ethic without first developing a
deontological (principle based) one. The purpose of, say, new criteria for
moral considerability will be in a sense to decide the parameters of
utility. What is the most sacred value in our physical universe? It is not
mere happiness. It is neither intelligence nor sentience. It is the process
the of living itself. The entropic flow is the essence of our (physical)
consciousness, and therefore must be some part of our vision of the sacred.
You might then also consult
Georgescu-Roegen. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
I would say neither the Leopold nor the Georgescu-Roegen text are out of
date despite their age. Both are classic texts in their fields and looked up
to today.
Adam
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|