Well I certainly agree that animal welfare issues do not constitute
environmental ethics.
I'm afraid I must leave the ?ad hoc definition topic for another time! (Damn
thesis to write!)
All the best,
Wayne.
----- Original Message -----
From: "STEVEN BISSELL" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Wayne Butler" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Help Please!!
> Wayne,
> Actually I don't think the line has to be ad hoc. I've always felt that as
> long as an issue was at least of an fairly obvious ecological/evolutionary
> nature, you could safely consider it 'environmental.' So, for the same
> reason I'm doubtful of most animal rights agendas as environmental issues,
> I've also been somewhat skeptical of some, not all, human public health
> issues.
>
> Anyway, the issue of feral domestic cats is, IMHO, clearly environmental,
> the issue of bonsai cats (or even a real example, like teenagers torturing
> cats for fun) is not because it is no based on a criteria of whether or
not
> it is an ecologalical/evolutionary issue.
>
> Steven
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Wayne Butler <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: "Discussion forum for environmental ethics."
> ><[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Help Please!!
> >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 16:35:25 -0000
> >
> >I agree wholeheartedly Steven.
> >The correct course of action regarding domestic predators, particularly
> >cats, ought to be control, rather than protection, in my opinion. In
> >addition, I believe that this can be the only conclusion from any
sensible
> >ecocentric position .
> >I also side 100% with Callicott in 'Triangular Affair' re animal welfare
vs
> >enviro ethics.
> >In response to your other post, I would argue that in order to stop
> >enviro-ethics from becoming everything-ethics, we are forced to draw a
> >fairly ad hoc boundary between ethics relating only to humans/human
> >artefacts and ethics relating to the 'natural' world. I am quite aware
that
> >this is a problematic distinction, full of artificial cut-off points and
> >messy grey areas, but I fear that it's the closest we may come to a
> >boundary
> >whilst preserving an object or concept to match the customary meanings of
> >our words.
> >Wayne.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Steven Bissell" <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: "Wayne Butler" <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 3:51 PM
> >Subject: Re: Help Please!!
> >
> >
> > > Don't get me started. Several states are now affording the same legal
> > > status to feral populations of domestic animals as wild species.
'Wild'
> > > horses are, of course, the first example but this is now going to
cats.
> > > Also introduced populations of animals, Parrots for example, are now
> > > being protected even though they are excluding native fauna. Actually
> > > I'm not sure how I feel about the latter, but I *know* I don't approve
> > > of protecting feral cats.
> > >
> > > Steven
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wayne Butler
> > > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 5:09 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: Help Please!!
> > >
> > > Yes, 'of advantage/disadvantage' would have done just as well as
> > > 'benefit'
> > > and the opposite which I tend to use 'dis-benefit' - can't remember
who
> > > I
> > > nicked that off! e.g, kittens constitute a dis-benefit to the biotic
> > > community, bottled-kittens a benefit. ;o)
> > > Cheers!?
> > > Wayne.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "STEVEN BISSELL" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: "Wayne Butler" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 10:39 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Help Please!!
> > >
> > >
> > > > Wayne,
> > > > I hadn't really thought about an organism doing what it is 'suppose'
> > > to do
> > > > as a 'benefit.' I tend to think in terms of 'advantageous' and
> > > > 'disadvantageous.' I suppose 'benefit' and 'penalty' (maybe?) would
> > > work.
> > > > Steven
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: Wayne Butler <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > >Reply-To: "Discussion forum for environmental ethics."
> > > > ><[log in to unmask]>
> > > > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > >Subject: Re: Help Please!!
> > > > >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:38:16 -0000
> > > > >
> > > > >Hmm, thanks Steven.
> > > > >By 'instrumental value' or 'benefit' I was refering to the idea
> > > merely
> > > that
> > > > >its camouflage helps it do benefical things - catch voles, avoid
> > > being
> > > > >eaten
> > > > >itself, that kind of thing.
> > > > >But yes - tautology seems to be the thing - its life benefits its
> > > being
> > > > >alive.
> > > > >So, many thanks for that.
> > > > >Cheers,
> > > > >Wayne.
> > > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "Steven Bissell" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > >To: "Wayne Butler" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > >Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:52 PM
> > > > >Subject: Re: Help Please!!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Wayne,
> > > > > > I probably can't help much with the 'formal' logic, perhaps Dr.
T.
> > > could
> > > > > > haul out some dead Greeks for that, but I can say something
about
> > > the
> > > > > > issues of instrumental value.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If by 'instrumental' you mean 'adaptive' in an
> > > ecological/evolutionary
> > > > > > sense then camouflage is only of value to the extent it allows
the
> > > hawk
> > > > > > or whatever, to live out a life cycle which includes
reproduction.
> > > > > > Unless the organism reproduces, there is no 'value' one way or
> > > another
> > > > > > to any characteristic. Saying that the characteristic is of
value
> > > to
> > > the
> > > > > > individual as long as it helps it merely survive is
tautological;
> > > It
> > > > > > lives in order to live.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Adaptation is kind of interesting in that it only works on
> > > individuals,
> > > > > > via reproduction, but species do evolve. However to say that the
> > > > > > individual has any interest in the 'existence' of the species is
> > > > > > probably making a mistake of misplaced concreteness. I think
> > > Whitehead
> > > > > > writes about that. While species are abstractions (to some
extent)
> > > > > > applied to groups of individuals, an individual has no 'reality'
> > > outside
> > > > > > of itself and 'in' the species.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe I'm not clear on what you mean by 'instrumental value'
here.
> > > But
> > > > > > it seems that you are confusing 'survival' with 'benefit.' Maybe
> > > not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interesting question however,
> > > > > > Steven
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> > > > > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wayne Butler
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 5:20 AM
> > > > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > > > Subject: Help Please!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear People,
> > > > > > I could really use your help with something (which is beginning
to
> > > drive
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > insane!!).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I kind of know instinctively that there is something logically,
> > > > > > deductively
> > > > > > wrong with a particular argument, but I can't work out what one
> > > should
> > > > > > call
> > > > > > this 'wrongness' *formally*! (e.g, is it circular, question
> > > begging,
> > > > > > etc.)
> > > > > > Please help me out here before I become unconscious from banging
> > > my
> > > head
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > the desk.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, so the wrongness of the argument is something like this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > One can say that, for example, the hawk's camouflage is of
> > > > > > instrumental
> > > > > > benefit to it.
> > > > > > However, if we accept that the hawk strives to continue its
> > > existence
> > > > > > (and
> > > > > > that of its species), there would seem to be something wrong or
> > > > > > contradictory or circular about saying that its *existence* is
of
> > > > > > instrumental benefit to *it*.
> > > > > > Its existence is, essentially, it. So how can its existence be
of
> > > > > > instrumental benefit to itself? <
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See what I mean? Now then, what would be formally, logically, or
> > > > > > deductively
> > > > > > wrong with saying that its existence is of instrumental benefit
to
> > > it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I so hope you can help with this!
> > > > > > With many thanks in anticipation,
> > > > > > Yours, desperately,
> > > > > > Wayne.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > > >
> > >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
|
