|
>But that's the issue. If it can't be proven or disproven, why do you insist
>on using it as the basis of an ethic?
i never insisted on using anything as the basis of an ethic steven... i
don't think you intend to put words in my mouth, but you are... there's
nothing wrong with asking the question, just please phrase it in a way that
doesn't imply that i said something that i didn't.... in other words, "do
you think this should be used as the basis of an ethic under the condition
that it cannot be proven?" seems like a better question to me... and that
is a very tough question to answer... don't we have to make certain
assumptions in any argument or any ethic? even science is based on certain
assumptions that we take for granted but that cannot be "proven".... now,
i'm not an advanced mathematician, but i once heard a professor of
philosophy lecturing on the fact that it cannot even be proven that the
shortest distance between two points is a straight line... that that is
actually an ASSUMPTION of geometry... i'm not sure if that's the best
example, but i'm sure other people could come up with others... i would
say that i base *part* of my personal ethic on the the belief that the earth
is sentient, and that it is good to be altruistic to her/it.... it's more
of a question of one's operative value center that anything... many people
do not include the earth in their operative value center for making ethical
decisions... i certainly do... and if i did not believe the earth was
sentient, then perhaps i would and perhaps i wouldn't still include it...
i never said that it should be the basis for an ethic for everyone, but then
again, i think that would be a great idea... of course it would help if
everyone assumed that the earth was sentient, and right now i don't see that
happening... but i can't really help what other people believe... all i
can do is share what i believe and what i know... and try to argue it in a
somewhat reasonable manner... hopefully, i'm getting better at that...
>So, how does any of the above definition apply to Earth?
simply that i believe all three parts of the definition are qualities that
apply to the earth...
bryan
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, December 11, 1998 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Is Altruism consistent with environmentalsim?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Friday, December 11, 1998 7:06 AM
>Subject: Re: Is Altruism consistent with environmentalsim?
>
>(snip)
>
>>
>>>1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
>>>2 : AWARE
>>>3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling
>>>- sen·tient·ly adverb
>>
>>why not? this all comes back to my contention that (as far as i know) it
>>cannot be proven or disproven...
>>
>But that's the issue. If it can't be proven or disproven, why do you insist
>on using it as the basis of an ethic?
>
>>
>>*i* don't have to change the definition of the word one iota to say that i
>>believe the earth is sentient...
>>
>
>So, how does any of the above definition apply to Earth?
>Steven
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
