>OK, here's an example. In Colorado we have introduced a disease. .
.whirling
>disease. . .in trout. The intermediate host is a little worm which is found
>naturally. In order to protect the ecosystem from the disease (it's pretty
>deadly on native and introduced salmonids and maybe other fish) it may be
>necessary to get rid of the worms, or at the least, most of them. So in
>order to protect the ecosystem, it is necessary to get rid of a bunch of
>genes, and maybe an entire organism. If gene=species=ecosystems (ethically)
>how do you figure out what to do?
I'm not saying that they are equal in that sense. I'm just saying that they
are equal in the sense that ecosystems are as real as genes, in that we
define both of them by their component parts. I'm perfectly open to a
discussion of what is more important to us in a case where we have to decide
between the two. In this case (and with the disclaimer that I do not know
all the relevant facts) I would say to get rid of the worms.
>If you are saying that in some instances it is "best" for me to sacrifice
my
>own life for my own best interests, I'd like so see how?
Well, what I'd like to see is where in the world did you get this from what
I wrote? I've left it below if you need to go back.
I think there is a
>much more complex definition of "self interest," ala Stephen Kellert
>_Kinship to Mastery_,
Much more complex than what? The definition that I offered? As I stated up
front, I'm not a professional ethicist. I may be moving in that direction,
however.
but no matter what, I have an evolutionary obligation
>to protect myself/near relations/species at the expense of others.
Are you willing to protect yourself at the non-expense of others?
>What if you're wrong and the Universe is chaotic and random? Where does
that
>leave you?
Are there still such theories? I'm suprised. But it doesn't matter. I
think it's more a matter of perspective that of ultimate truth. If we see
harmony, that's what we will experience. If we see chaos, then chaos it is.
Obviously this is a tough thing to discuss analytically.
Tell me what you believe Steve. Is the universe by nature random and
chaotic, or ordered and harmonious? Or neither? And whichever you believe,
how does that affect your approach to ethics that seems different from mine?
If I have not made my stance clear however, it is because I am indeed not
yet clear about it.
Bryan H.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Britain Pushes the Panic Button on Biotech Foods
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 2:23 PM
>Subject: Re: Britain Pushes the Panic Button on Biotech Foods
>
>
>>>But Bryan, where does that leave you ethically?
>>
>>To tell you the truth Steve, I'm not sure exactly where that leaves me
>>ethically, or where I stand ethically. I'm still working that out. I
>think
>>it's important to first be able to agree on a few basic fundamentals. I
>>won't push the issue of whether or not you agree with me on this. But if
>>what I proposed was true, that there was no difference from a fundamental
>>ethical perspective between genes and ecosystems, I'd like to ask you
where
>>that would leave *you* ethically? I've had far less classroom time in
>>ethics than many on this list. And so it's hard for me to apply my
current
>>insights and understandings into a commonly accepted ethical frame.
>>
>>If you are saying that gene
>>>sequences and ecosystems are ethically equivalent, aren't your really
>>saying
>>>that all ethics are situational?
>(snip)
>
>OK, here's an example. In Colorado we have introduced a disease. .
.whirling
>disease. . .in trout. The intermediate host is a little worm which is found
>naturally. In order to protect the ecosystem from the disease (it's pretty
>deadly on native and introduced salmonids and maybe other fish) it may be
>necessary to get rid of the worms, or at the least, most of them. So in
>order to protect the ecosystem, it is necessary to get rid of a bunch of
>genes, and maybe an entire organism. If gene=species=ecosystems (ethically)
>how do you figure out what to do?
>
>>
>>Or do you recourse to anthropocentric
>>>survivalism, i.e. those gene sequences and ecosystems that are of
>>>"importance" to humans are deserving of ethical consideration, otherwise,
>>>into the trash bin. (that last is obviously a bit of an overstatement,
I'm
>>>in kind of a grumby mood this morning ;-) )
>>>Bissell
>>
>>Right. I have this to propose, and I'd like to see what any on this list
>>have to say about it. I propose the possibility that there need be no
>>distinction between anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric. If we as
>>humans always acted in our *true* best interests, we would be
>simultaneously
>>be acting in the best interest of everything else. Everything around us
in
>>our world would at worst be unaffected. Of course this leaves a huge
>>definition of our "true best interests" to be defined, which I readily
>admit
>>I'm not prepared to do, and which I suspect may not be able to be done,
>>though I don't rule it out.
>
>If you are saying that is some instances it is "best" for me to sacrifice
my
>own life for my own best interests, I'd like so see how? I think there is a
>much more complex definition of "self interest," ala Stephen Kellert
>_Kinship to Mastery_, but no matter what, I have an evolutionary obligation
>to protect myself/near relations/species at the expense of others.
>
>>
>>Going a little towards the metaphysical deep end here, I believe that the
>>universe is intrinsically harmonious. We as humans are different in the
>>sense that we have the free will (yes, sounds religious doesn't it) to
>>either be harmonious or to be non-harmonious with the rest of the
>harmonious
>>universe. Being harmonious is in our best interest. That last sentence
>>sums up my argument in a highly simplified way.
>>
>
>
>What if you're wrong and the Universe is chaotic and random? Where does
that
>leave you?
>Bissell
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|