Ok.
It appears that genetic similitude = heightened empathic response = greater
degree of responsibility toward, respect for, and valuing of the species.
Thus, we are still approaching the question from an anthropocentric basis
for reasoning. Frankly, I tend to concur and believe that this forms the
basis for the environmental ethics of many (although not all) as well.
Here is another parable-quandry:
I shot a bear last summer.
I was hiking just outside of Talkeetna, a small village in Alaska.
The weather was beautiful. It was sunny, the arctic wildflowers were in
bloom.
I was told to carry a rifle if I wanted to go for a hike.
So I did.
I didn't expect the bear. I saw no droppings. I heard no noise.
I suppose the bear didn't expect me either.
But, around the bend in the small trail I was on, there it was, foraging.
It looked up and, in a moment was rushing at me, growling, mouth agape,
speeding up.
I just reacted.
I lifted the rifle, cocked, and shot.
The bear dropped.
Its last breath sounded quite horrible.
I still hear it in some of my more uncomfortable dreams.
The Fish and Game warden came out, took a look, and took a statement.
The local folks came out, divided up the meat and fur, and disposed of the
rest.
I still feel bad.
Although I do not know what else I could have done.
Perhaps, I shouldn't have even gone there.
Perhaps that land belongs to the bear.
I still love being in the wild places.
I am glad the wild places are not empty.
I hope I am not evil.
___________________________
Richard Haimann, P.E.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.haimann.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Gus diZerega
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 12:09 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pets. Comments on "Property"
>
>
> on 1/23/02 11:35 AM, Steven Bissell at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> > I think human/non-human sentient being relations are complex.
> Some of them
> > can be partially defined as issues of property. Pet ownership is one of
> > them.
>
> Steven,
> No problem. We agree. I just wanted to see what you meant by the term
> "property" because so many who emphasize it today mean the equivalent of
> their having full despotic power over whatever is owned. As
> perhaps is the
> case with the argument by Richard Haimann.
>
> With respect to him, I notice he has yet to answer my question. The
> question he raises about phyla and such is simply avoiding my very simple
> question. If he squashes the cockroach and does not do the equivalent to
> the trespassing cocker spaniel, there must be some difference. If he sees
> no difference, I suggest he consult first Darwin and second, a
> psychiatrist!
> ;-)
>
> Gus
|