I think there is a good point made here. I believe that unless people are
influenced by the beautiful in nature, our actions must in some way be
disrespectful of nature. A respect for nature must stem from some sense that
nature has intrinsic value. I would argue that, in the words of Morse,
"...the beautiful is not only that aesthetically pleasing, but also that
which is functional."

To which John Livingstone adds:

"...rather than applying ourselves to definitions of "the beautiful" so that
we may then produce archtypes by means of which to evaluate the world, we
might more constructively engage ourselves in creating the beautiful. The
world of prosthetic man cries for beautiful new stories, beautiful new
myths, -beautiful insights into that which eternally surrounds and
permeates us, but is denied to our senses by the rigid implacability of the
prosthetics."

Nature is both beautiful to the humanity and functional to all living things.

"...traditional ethical systems may be seen as part of the greater
environmental problem iself...." Possibly then what Livingstone admits is
that first thing that we need to do is begin "the search is for
environmentally appropriate behaviour - which behaviour awaits definition."

Cited in "Environmental Ethics: Philosophical and policy perspectives.
Edited by P. P. Hanson, Dept. Philosophy, Simon Fraser Univ. (Institute for
Humanities/ SFU Publications, Burnaby, BC., Canada).

jon


At 10:42 AM 11/22/1998 -0700, you wrote:
>Extending ethical consideration to all componenets of the environment
>does not necessarily require automatic and complete altruism. Being
>human requires a certain amount of destruction of our environment---just
>as being a lion, a tree sloth, or a tarantula does as well.
>Recognization that we are destructive does not require that we halt all
>destructive instincts. It means we can adjust our destructive nature's
>so that we destroy only when we absolutely need to---just as a lion, a
>tree sloth, or a tarantula does.
>I don't know if this helps you. I just felt like saying it.
>
>Jerusha
>
>On Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:32:50 EST [log in to unmask] writes:
>>I thought the main point of environmental ethics was to extend ethical
>>considerations to all components of the environment, not just humans.
>>To me
>>that would supersede all other considerations but would not detract
>>from
>>species uniqueness. Help me out here. Suzanne
>>
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
>or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
>
        



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%