-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Paul Kirby
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 9:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ethics and the species question
Paul K
(snip) Which boils down to:
If an outcome in the natural world (an extinction perhaps) can come about
either by "natural means" or as a result of human activity why is one
acceptable and the other unacceptable?
Bissell here: Depends on what you mean by human activity. If it is something
outside of options, probably no difference. But humans are sort of different
in that they have, usually, all sorts of options available to them. If the
extinction of another species is necessary to protect a significant number
of human lives, then we have a real issue. But, I'm hard pressed to think of
any examples other than pathogenic viruses and such where that would apply.
In most cases human activity is along a spectrum of possible activities and
there are acceptable nodes where extinction of other species will not occur;
therefore it is ethical to seek out and live at those nodes on the spectrum.
Steven
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|