Hello John,

I appreciate that you take the time to continue to process this issue.

You wrote:
> > Ray here:
> > It seems to me, John, that in order to arrive at consensus as to the
logic
> > of the question, the actors must have reached a working agreement on the
> > context, world view, whatever one calls it.  Suppose one side comes from
a
> > strict animal protection standpoint that bears have rights just as
humans
> do
> > .   Then consider that the other side comes from the point that only
> humans
> > have rights and that animals are here for whatever use that the human
> > desires.  It seems to me that some negotiation would be required.  That
> > implies that the original positions did not truly reflect the world
views
> of
> > the actors.  The negotiation involves a working out of a mutual agreable
> > world view.  If that is not possible, the conflict continues.  Do I err?
> >
> > Ray
>

John said in part:
> I think the various world views that influence desire (revealed personal
> preferences) are the values, the intuition of some animals being bad or
good
> or both good and bad. So as long as the actors can agree on the logical
form

Ray here:
It seems to me that how one views the world and the place of humans within
it *determines* how one structures and orders one's values.  For me,
"desire" is not a "value"; but "desire" follows from one's value set.

For me, animals (humans are of the animal kingdom but also including plants,
soil,...) are neither intrinsically "good" nor "bad".  (Note that a weed is
a "plant out of place", but only in the value that a particular person
holds).  Those terms are human constructs, attributes assigned to the
"other" in terms of the way humans, individually and collectively, think
*they* have experienced those entities.  Which is to say that the attributes
(good/bad) that individual humans give to themselves, other humans and
non-humans depend on how one views the world and the implications of
"others" for oneself.  The individual world view  -> values becomes a
community's world/value depending on the strength/dominance of one world
view/value set over all others.  In a very homogeneous society there is wide
acceptance of a particular world view/value; in a heterogeneous society
there is substantial conflict over world views/values.

Presently, it seems to me that the Reagan/Thatcher "greed is good" world
view and consequent value set is dominant in the "first world" and seems to
be gaining ground in the rest of the world.  From that world view ->value
there has evolved a particular ethic regarding human-human and
human-nonhuman relationships.  That does not mean it is the (absolutely)
"right", "ethically right" world view/value/ethic set.  And there seems to
be substantial opposition in all segments of the world community.  It seems
to me that this is a dynamic process, evolving as humans obtain a better
grasp of the meaning of life, the world, the universe.

It is in this context that I am most grateful to Paul, David, Jim for
bringing that model of the world views into play here.

I would hope that as we continue to look at different environmental issues
that we would discuss the foundations of the conflicts in terms of their
model - start with their model.  Then try to think about ramifications,
modifications that seem pertinent to the ethics of environmental action.  It
seems to me that it would be helpful if each of us, individually, would make
a little self-examination to try to understand why we ourselves take a
particular position and how our individual world views determine our values,
our ethical positions, our positions on environmental issues.  Share our
perceptions among us and see if we can come to some different kind of
approach to evaluating environmental issues.

Can we come to some kind of agreement on approach?  Could we then agree to
ask the moderators to moderate the discussion in the context of this
definition?  Can we start with a personal statement of how we each,
individually, think of the world view, the consequent values, ethical
standards.

Or am I totally out of touch?

Again, thanks John for pushing me toward this expression of my views.

Sincerely,

Ray