Ray is asking that we "address the fundamentals". May I add this is a
rather clumsy plea for help in disentangling the complexity. The plea
takes the form of a crude characterisation of the view-points that I seem
to see on the list, and an invitation to comment.
The members of the list appear to fall into one of two camps: those who
believe that we must establish a relationship with "nature" that protects
our interests (nutritional, aesthetic, spiritual etc) and those who
believe that our actions with respect to "nature" should be independent
of our needs.
We can then add a layer of complexity by subdividing these two camps into
consequentialists and deontologists. We now have four basic groupings:
HC) human centred consequentialists,
HD) human centred deontologists,
NC) nature centred consequentialists
ND) nature centred deontologists.
In the way of social scientists we could then draw a four cornered chart
and plot onto it behaviours and attitudes appropriate to each group, using
the chart to explore the territory. (we could even drop various list
members into the categories ).
For example, how might each of the four justify vegetarianism?
HC) Meat production causes distortions to the natural environment which may
be to our long term disbenefit (Human well-being argument)
HD) Cruelty is not an attribute that dignifies humanity (Human moral
standing argument)
NC) Meat production is destructive to the natural world and causes
suffering. (environmental well being argument)
ND) Killing creatures is wrong (Unarguable duty wrt nature)
Group ND (nature centred deontologist) gives me problems. Is it possible to
be concerned about right action, irrespective of outcome, without being
human centred? Does this category exist? Those who could not kill a
suffering animal may fit perhaps, as might those with a relegious affinity
with nature.
You may disagree with these characterisations in general (I may simply be
wrong) and the examples in particular. I think that some on the list might
even argue that a "human centred" environmental ethic is a contradiction.
(I believe it is nature's only hope). Can self interest form part of an
ethic?
You might also ask "so what?" . I can only answer that we seem to spend a
lot of time trading views and it is helpful to me to try to make sense of
the pattern of interest. Are we trying to persuade others to join us in our
sector of the chart or are we trying to identify ethical "truths"?
How do others draw the map of environmental ethics? Any takers?
regards Paul K
|