[MODERATOR'S NOTE:

This email came from [log in to unmask] . I have edited it to remove a
large amount of quoted text from earlier Enviroethics messages.

Please, everyone, think about deleting large quotations unless you
really need them.

 Thanks,
-David Pearson.]


----------------- Original message (ID=215D89F6) (328 lines) ------------------
Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from ori.rl.ac.uk by jiscmail.ac.uk (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <[log in to unmask]>;
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:49:06 +0000
Received: from venus.open.ac.uk (venus.open.ac.uk [137.108.143.2])
        by ori.rl.ac.uk (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0IGp9020820
        for <[log in to unmask]>; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:51:09 GMT
Received: from moray.open.ac.uk by venus.open.ac.uk via SMTP Local (Mailer 3.1)
          with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:49:03 +0000
Received: by moray.open.ac.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
          id <CXSNF1HC>; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:48:59 -0000
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Animal Rights and Civil Rights linked by Nash
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:48:59 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Within the context of racist discourses [and the associated use of the
biology/culture binary] it's not surprising that when expressed in such a
way the proposal is offensive. It especially smacks of the patronising tone
associated with actions of privileged groups [expressing concern with the
welfare of moral patients, as opposed to accepting people/animals as moral
agents, which often infantilises excluded groups]. But membership of the
moral community is crucial to both the discussion about social exclusion
[and environmental racism] and the moral consideration of non-human animals,
trees, mountains, wilderness, etc. If moral community is defined in terms of
species membership or a culturally specific norm such as rationality or in
terms of sentiency, this clearly matters. If actions are based on moral
codes, then they have implications. The history of toxic dumping was in
effect a product of a lack of moral consideration of specific communities.
The consequences of dumping were not defined as relevant in the decisions of
the polluters for a whole series of reasons including racism. Consider the
list's discussions over membership of the moral community regarding
non-human animals, living things, biotic community in the last couple of
years; how the moral community is defined and how this is then combined with
specific ways of considering, for example, rights/obligations is one of the
central concerns of environmental ethics.

I'm going about this the long way round; surely we can have a debate about
the key concepts of environmental ethics which avoids the response that an
attempt to compare moral discussions across different areas is tantamount to
condoning racism. Institutional prejudice is, after all, one of the ways in
which a lack of moral consideration can be manifested. We should therefore
focus on why and where such consideration is absent in different
environmental issues.

Mark J Smith