-----Original Message-----
From: LS McLeod <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, November 08, 1998 9:13 AM
Subject: RE: gentlemen?
>Alright gentlemen ('boys'?), on to more substantive issues.
>
>As for this 'girl' (oh, and in the Southern part of the US, women are
>generally referred to as 'ladies' and girls as 'young ladies'), I've been
>doing some research into the policy viability of ecofeminism, in
particular,
>the ecofeminist ethic of care. One of the *common* (ecocentric/animal
>rights) policy approaches to dealing environmental protection is to reduce
>the rights of nature to the level of infants and the mentally challenged
>(nature is allotted rights such as protection against wanton suffering). I
>find this problematic in that it seems to slip back into the anthropocentic
>paradigm that champions value dualism, where there exists a distinct line
of
>demarcation between nature, and natural hierarchy, nature is inferior
>(rather than different from) to humans.
>
Good point, here are two quotes I like on this issue.
"Moving across the spectrum (the species) of wild animal being, the concept
of rights extrapolates less and less well: rights for sheep, bats, eagles,
mussels. The problem only grows as we plunge further into radically
different orders of being. We might at first think that there are "rights"
behind each of the pairs of eyes that we confront. But that is not so; what
is there is a fierce "wildness." The value of that is indisputable, even
though it is a value that is not carried adequately by the concept of
rights. There is an independent integrity in the wild life, and humans ought
not to violate this without justification."
Holmes Rolston, III.
". . .Individual animals, a lot of them, will continue to be harmed if we
eat them, experiment upon them, hunt them, keep them captive, certainly if
we attempt to preserve endangered species (for management involves the
control of stock and eradication of pests and predators). Even if we leave
them alone in the wild they will not be immune to suffering. I condone these
practices because it is in the overall interests of animals, being primitive
beings rather than a competing race of human ones, that they are adapted to
our ways. In the debate over ‘conservation or welfare' I am firmly on the
side of the former."
Michael P. T. Leahy.
I'm very suspicious of an ethic which rests on the premise that we have
moral obligations to nature because we, humans, are of a "higher" nature. In
an evolutionary sense that is incorrect; lots of species have evolved more
recently than Homo sapiens (sic), sheep for example.
>So, I wonder if the ecofeminist ethic of care can offer a more satisfying
>alternative. Ecofeminism, while not rejecting rights, generally does not
>focus on rights because of the above mentioned problems. The problem
becomes
>how can care be politicized in a meaningful, more positive way. (I say more
>positive because rights-based theories are generally constructed on the
>assumption of conflict and competition). Comments? Suggestions?
>
If the ecofeminist ethic were solely based on care I'd have the same
reservations. Do we care or give care because it is the right thing to do,
or because we are capable of it? If the latter, I'm suspicious again.
Steven J. Bissell
http://www.du.edu/~sbissell
http://www.responsivemanagement.com
Our human ecology is that of a rare species of mammal
in a social, omnivorous niche. Our demography is one of
a slow-breeding, large, intelligent primate.
To shatter our population structure, to become abundant
in the way of rodents, not only destroys our ecological
relations with the rest of nature, it sets the stage
for our mass insanity.
Paul Shepard
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|