Paul wrote: Many moons ago I raised a question on the list about
sustainability having
something to do with duties towards future generations. The question
concerned the philosophically curious idea of having a duty towards a
person who does not exist."

Bissell; Interesting problem Paul. It reminds me of the discussion in Holmes
Rolston's book about the difference of obligations to species as compared to
obligations to individual animals. Based on that I often give this question
to my students;

You have been made the manager of Yellowstone National Park. Two species in
the park of special concern to you: American bison and grizzly bear.
American bison are becoming rather too common and now wander out of the park
and create all sorts of problems of disease and range damage on private
lands. Grizzly bear are very rare outside of the park, legally endangered
and completely protected. One of the major policy directions of the park is
the recovery of grizzly bear.

On a cold January morning one of your rangers calls in to report a bull
bison has broken through the ice on a lake. The ranger has been watching the
buffalo struggle for about an hour and in her judgment it will not be able
to get out without help. If events continue, the brute will have to suffer a
prolonged and painful death. She has a winch on her truck and thinks she can
drag the doomed beast out if you send some help. She also tells you that a
tour group of Vatican Officials accompanied by State Department personnel
are on the scene and are demanding that she take action.

Somehow you make the right decision and get to keep your job in Yellowstone.
The following spring the same ranger calls you and reports a sow (female)
grizzly bear has somehow managed to have twin cubs on an island in the same
lake. Now that the ice is gone there is no way to the mainland. The sow can
swim, but the cubs cannot. If left on the island they will starve in a week
or less. A national animal rights group has gotten wind of the situation and
threatens a media blitz unless you take action.

Here are some (but not all) of the issues. The park has a general, but not
universal, policy of "letting mother nature take care of her own problems."
Many buffalo die in the park each winter and are an important spring-time
source of food for grizzly bears. An important mission of the park is to
allow ecosystems to function in order to better understand ecological
functions. Historically the Park Service has not been sympathetic to Park
Managers who bring the spot-light of attention on them or the Service. The
previous Park manager at Yellowstone was "retired" for following wild-fire
policy which allowed half the park to burn. You know that State Department
has a bigger voice in budget allocations than Interior. National Park
Service Policy has become the focal point in discussions about animal
rights, biological diversity and responsiveness to public demands. You could
get transferred to Hot Springs, Arkansas if you're not politically correct.

Give and defend your decisions in both cases. More importantly show the
similarities and the difference in the decisions. Explain the major moral
and environmental theories you use to make your decisions. Discuss the
interplay of personal, professional and public ethics in this situation.

Every time I give this question I get all possible variations: let both die;
save both; save the bison and forget the grizzlies; save the grizzlies and
forget the bison. I don't think that any one of them is intrinsically
correct ethically, but I'm pretty sure that saving the grizzlies (a question
of species) and letting the bison die (a question of an individual) is the
correct one as far as public policy is concerned.

Your question about obligation to future generations is also interesting. I
agree that it is difficult to see how we have obligations to the
individuals, but I can see obligations to the species (H. sapiens). I
probably wouldn't put it in the context of sustainability, but rather a
strong anthropocentric survival ethic.

Steven

  “Our human ecology is that of a rare species
of mammal in a social, omnivorous niche. Our
demography is one of a slow-breeding, large,
intelligent primate. To shatter our population
structure, to become abundant in the way of
rodents, not only destroys our ecological
relations with the rest of nature, it sets
the stage for our mass insanity.”
        Paul Shepard

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Paul Kirby
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 6:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: new interpretive perspectives?


Steven Bissell asks

>>1. Is the fertilized egg an embryo? Is it a moral agent? Do we have moral
>obligations to fertilized eggs?<<

Many moons ago I raised a question on the list about sustainability having
something to do with duties towards future generations. The question
concerned the philosophically curious idea of having a duty towards a
person who does not exist.

This is not easy to digest as it is possible to accept the case that a
potential human being does not have sufficient human qualities to be
deserving of particular rights, whilst at the same time accepting that
unborn future generations do have rights.

I find this dilemma insoluble at the moment as it seems possible to accept
the validity of sustainability and yet accept that potential human beings
may not have rights.

 Maybe I have not expressed this very well but perhaps that is part my
confusion.

Kind regards Paul K