>Bryan, please define "higher nature."
Sure Corey. We are of a higher nature because we are self-aware. Now, the
language gets a little slippery here because someone could argue that
there's no way of knowing whether or not animals (for instance) are
self-aware. So I'll use different language. Human's are the only earthly
possesors of 'free-will'. I mean we have free-will in the sense that we can
trancend the physical world. We are not of this earth. We are not our
bodies. We can make decisions based on 'the highest good for all
concerned,' and not based soley on our immediate needs. I'm aware that I am
still unclear on this. I know what I mean, I'm just having a little trouble
in saying it. Not only, and not necessarily, because I don't have the
words, but mostly because I haven't really sat down and thought it through
clearly enough yet. I think I'm still waiting on more understanding :) But
I still enjoy the hell out of talking about it... :)
>See Rolston, Holmes (1989) Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in
>the Natural World, Temple University Press, Philidelphia, PA...for an
>explanation of "bifurcated ecocentrism"...French also wrote an articled
>(published in JEE (year?) on "Against Biospherical Egalitarianism"
thanks corey, i'll be sure to check these out...
spirit
-----Original Message-----
From: M. Corey Watts <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, November 08, 1998 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: gentlemen?
>
>>
>>I disagree with this steven. I DO believe that humans have obligations to
>>nature becase we are of a higher nature.
>
>
>Bryan, please define "higher nature."
>
>We have obligations for the very
>>reason that we are aware that obligations exist.
>
>We're moral agents, not (by and large) moral patients...if I have the lingo
>right?
>
> Hmmm, it's hard to defend
>>that, but I'll try. We understand that each (major) decision that we make
>>is going to affect not only ourselves but the world around us. We must
take
>>into account all things before making a decision. Now, this doesn't seem
>>practical for each and every decision, but if we can first construct a
>>framework FOR decision making, based on first considering all things (I
>>would say for all LIVING things), then we can make all other decisions by
>>referring to this framework. I think that we should consider all living
>>things as equal to ourselves, with us being 'first among equals' as it
were.
>>I believe that we have the obligation of being stewards of the earth,
>>because we are stewards of the earth, whether we believe it or not. The
>>decisions that we make will affect the earth and all living things on it.
>>This cannot be said for any other 'species'. I'm not sure where to go
with
>>this from here, but i trust further discussion will bring out all the
>>important points...
>>
>
>See Rolston, Holmes (1989) Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in
>the Natural World, Temple University Press, Philidelphia, PA...for an
>explanation of "bifurcated ecocentrism"...French also wrote an articled
>(published in JEE (year?) on "Against Biospherical Egalitarianism"
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>Corey Watts (PGDipSc Student)
>Centre for Conservation Biology
>The University of Queensland
>St Lucia, Qld, AUSTRALIA 4068.
>
>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>Telephone: +61 7 3365 2475
>Facsimile: +61 7 3365 1655
>CCB Website: http://www.ccb.uq.edu.au/website
>
>"Wings and feathers on the crying, mysterious Ages...
>...all that is right, all that is good."
>D.H. Lawrence, "The Wild Common."
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|