I don't know about this. Weakness of will is an individual character trait
which could apply to ethical persons just as easily to unethical persons. A
person may have a terrible smoking habit but would never advocate anyone
else smoking. There are lots of impersonal preferences which conflict with
personal perferences. Weakness of will is perhaps the antithesis of courage.
Courage is a form of endurance. I am not sure if 'tossing beer cans' out of
the plymouth along a stretch of dusty desert wilderness is unethical or not.

It is unethical if everyone is doing it and there are 6 billion person's on
the earth perhaps. This is a big perhaps. When the phrase 'weakness of will'
is used, it has really nothing to do with ethics. It is not my will be done,
but 'Thine Will Be Done'. Reducing personal consumption is about conserving
income, keeping the earth looking pleasant and tidy, and many other sort of
basicallly good traits and habits. This is the stuff  of good habits itself,
but I think environmental ethics is more comprehensive, and universal in the
sense of a social form of common exercise.

For example, if a nation has an opportunity to protect forests before they
are irreversibly mowed down by feller bunchers, and the stumps piled and
burned to get rid of root rot, then the nation may be wise to consider what
is at stake here (biological diversity and richness, incredible intricacy
and immaculate beauty). First of all the nation should ask professional
architects and engineers would materials can be used to replace wood. This
is the beginning of an ethical treatment of forests. Why use something that
is going to rot and fall down, is dangerous to life (5000 persons died in
house fires last year in the USA - probably 500- 600 in Canada).

In Lima, Peru, a city of 9 million, wood is banned from use in house
construction. The reason for the ban is because of fires, and also because
of safety due to termites eating the wood. The termites and the fires caused
many deaths. Outside the city limits where there are squatters living in
'estaras' there are gastly fires each week. The 'estaras' are mats made from
canes attached to small dimension lumber. The fires start from kerosene
stoves, candles, and most often it is children that are killed in these
fires. So the city of Lima, a city of 9 million persons, has a ban on wood
construction in homes.

Of course the decision to ban wood in homes was not primarily because of a
need to protect rainforests species, but rather it was due to necessity. It
was necessary to save lives and institute construction standards that would
prevent death and injury.

chao

john foster











----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Lanier <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Weakness of Will Conference in Montreal - Consumption ethic


> Hello Chris Perley,
>
> What is: "Weakness of Will"?
>
> Is it weakness of will if one does not follow one's own inclination
> *because* one perceives some kind of threat, intimidation?
>
> Is it weakness of will if one decides that one's own particular way of
"will
> to power" is not really ethical?  And decides to change?  And is it a
> non-weakness of will if one insists on pursuing a particular line of
attack
> if that line is clearly *not* ethical?
>
> Is "weakness of will" categorically an *unethical* position?  Is "strength
> of will" categorically an *ethical* position?  Without regard to the end
in
> mind?  What are the criteria by which one can draw some conclusion?  Does
> the particular world view influence the conclusion about the ethical
nature
> of a particular weakness/strength of will?
>
>  More comments follow.
> ------------
> Chris, you wrote:
> >Hi y'all
> >
> >I think " weakness of will"  is a very relevant topic for environmental
> ethics.  In the past >much of the ethics emphasis seems to have been on
our
> direct relationship with the >environment - should I cut this tree down,
> kill this animal, accept these values within >the environment? etc.
> >
> Ray here:
> I think that your examples are secondary to the question of "our direct
> relationship with the environment".
>
> For example, are we destined to *dominate* the environment or are we in
fact
> an integral part of and *defined* as humans by the way we interact with
the
> environment, etc.?  How we view our relationship will determine first, our
> value set re the environmental question, second, is it then necessary to
cut
> or kill; third, how do we relate to the act of cutting or killing?  Etc.
> ----------------
>
> You wrote:
> >It can be particularly galling (IMHO) when an obvious consumer (unless
they
> are one of >the lucky ones that doesn't eat, breath or expel) condemns
> almost any use - often >through an aesthetic sense of abhorence at blood,
> sawdust, "Deliverance" types et al, >as well as a wholly romantic view of
> how the environment works, and how humans >interact withIN it.
> >
> Ray here:
> What do you mean by "Deliverance" types et al?
>
> What is the problem that you see with: "an aesthetic sense of abhorence at
> blood, sawdust..." as a basis for condemning "any use"?  Do you  think
that
> one should *never* "abhore" actions that result in blood spilt, sawdust
> flying?  If not, why not?
>
> I often wonder just what it means to have a "wholly romantic" view of how
> the environment works and how humans react within it.  And why is it a
wrong
> view?  And I wonder just how one comes to some kind of determination of
just
> what is the right way for humans to react within it?  How does one know
the
> "right way"?
>
> I often think that those who disdain the abhorence of blood spilt have
never
> raised a calf, a pig, a rabbit to maturity and then killed it for food for
> one's family.  Or never served in an active war.
> ------------
>
> Chris, you continue:
> >unrealistic) view on the environment:  had an interesting discussion with
a
> student >recently who wanted us all to sign a submission against the use
of
> animals for >cosmetic research.  I have no problem with saying no to that
> specific case, but didn't >want to have a buy-in to the more general case
of
> "no animal use" - which I suspected >was her agenda.  So I asked what was
> the basis of her concern (she being a >philosophy student).  Her response
> was the anthropomorphic view that the animals >should be allowed to live
> "happily".  A chorus pointed out the obvious.  Bambi (and I >think
> utilitarianism) does the damage again.  That obscene movie (and I don't
mean
> >Deliverance) should be censored as at least R18 in my view.
> >
> Ray  here:
> You say you had no problem with saying no to that specific case.  But I
> gather you didn't follow your inclination - a weakness of will?  Justified
> by your "general case"?  And no guts to follow your will in the
particular?
> And what was your basis for suspecting that "no animal use" was her
agenda?
> "Agenda" is a pejorative term used by people who do not want, or are
unable
> to offer a rational argument in opposition to the person's "agenda".
>
> Why do you think that it is an "anthropomorphic" view that animals should
be
> allowed to live 'happily'?  Do you think that humans are the only animals
> that can experience life  "happily"?  If so, what evidence do you have to
> support that view?
>
> About your "chorus" pointing out the obvious.  Who participated in the
> "chorus"?  Your sychophants that were kissing up for a grade?  Putting
down
> a young person that had the integrity to follow her personal instincts?
Is
> that the tradition in the educational system in NZ?  And why is your view
> "obvious"?  Because of your bias?
>
> You denigrate "Bambi".  Now I suspect that I have done alot more killing,
> blood-letting, butchering, in my day than you ever have or will.  Even
when
> I was teaching my children how to kill, skin and butcher rabbits for their
> spending money, I was also encouraging them to love and respect their
> non-human relations.  I took them to see "Bambi" and encouraged them to
> think about those creatures in a respectful, loving, caring way.
>
> I would say that your denigration of "Bambi" reflects a very barren part
of
> your own nature.  With my own bias, I would recommend that you take
> counselling about your apparent callousness toward our non-human
relations.
>
> Your student did not have a problem; you do.
>
> And I oppose censorship in any form.
> ---------------
> Chris again:
> >But back to the "Weakness of will": I have a paper from one of the USFS
> directors
> >(MacCleery) which points out that the ethic toward the land  - exercised
BY
> those >directly in contact with said land - is only one part of the
picture.
> A sustainable future >also requires a consumption ethic which relates to
> what I use, how I use it etc - >however phychologically removed I am from
> the actual harvest.  He states in the article >
> >
> >" Any ethical or moral foundation for ecological sustainability is weak
> indeed unless >there is a corresponding focus on the consumption side of
the
> natural resource >equation."
> >
> Ray here:
> I firmly believe that we need to examine both supply and consumption
values.
> But more basically, we need to examine the basic assumptions, the world
> views which provide the basis for our ethical systems.
>
> I am familiar with Leopold and MacCleery's work.  But I don't understand
how
> you can agree with them and hold the views you've expressed in this post.
>
> [Good references deleted for space]
>
> Ray