-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Tantillo <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, April 10, 1999 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Opera as Torture was Re: the Problem of Suffering


>At last, something I can disagree with Jim on.

Uh-oh, not *another* brush fire! <eyebrows raised in mock horror>. . . . :)


That would be =:-o

>
>(snip a bunch of really good stuff)
>
>Tantillo wrote: Please note I don't make evolutionary arguments, anywhere.
>Bad policy.
>"Naturalistic fallacy" and all that. . . .
>
>Bissell here: Why not? The so-called "naturalistic fallacy" has become
>somewhat of a shibboleth in philosophy, in fact it is the most common
>critique of environmental ethics; i.e. that EE is "merely" applied ethics,
>like medical ethics, etc.


Tantillo wrote: A recent book on hunting and hunting ethics is Allen Jones's
new A Quiet Place of Violence: Hunting and Ethics in the Missouri River
Breaks
(Bozeman, MT: Spring Creek Publishing, 1997).  While the book jacket
completely emphasizes the ethics aspect: "Here, for the first time, is
presented a legitimate ethic that not only justifies hunting but places it
in the larger context of our current environmental porblems and debates," I
think Jones simply fails to deliver the promised goods--although he still
has written a decent book.  Let me explain why.

One reason is because of his justification argument.  Here I rely on the
jacket again to summarize: "Jones argues that hunting must be right in that
it returns us to the nature from which we evolved, deobjectifying the
world.  We're no longer watching the world, we're no longer objectifying
it, we're participating in it as essential members."  While I agree with
the basic ideas Jones expresses here--they are similar to the points you
and Chris Perley have been making--I have some reservations.


Bissell here: me too. I think hunting *can* return us to nature, and that
was *part* of Ortega's view. But, I don't think that is an ethical
justification of hunting.

Tantillo: Two comments, the first addressing your concern about the
naturalistic
fallacy: (A) "must be right" if it returns us to nature? Well, as men we
evolved as the males of the species to procreate with every possible female
out there--a common reproductive strategy in animals--does that mean that
promiscous sex with every female we encounter must be right because it
returns us to nature?

Bissell: Actually I'm not talking about a return to nature so much as a
recognition of our evolutionary role in ecosystems. Not all of our ancestors
hunted directly, but all took part in the hunt culturally. Paul Shepard
writes about some group where the women still sing the men off to the hunt
and they aren't allowed to return empty handed. Then the women take over all
the preparation of the meat, and are the ones responsible for making up the
songs which constitute the oral history of the hunt. As to promiscuity, the
male strategy must be taken within the context of the female strategey. I
think most modern evolutionary biologists recognize that females are really
the ones controlling the evolution of mating behaviors.

I think hunting can, for some people, be a positive reinforcement of their
role in ecosystems, but again, that is not an ethical justification. My view
that our role as omnivores with an evolutionary history, not cultural
history, of hunting is a justification of hunting.

Tantillo: There's an "is/ought" problem inherent in any such
naturalistic approach to ethics, and I'm not sure Jones is aware of it or
addresses it in any way.  Even if humans *do* have a "hunting instinct,"
I'm not sure how morally relevant that is.  Which leads me to. . .

Bissell here: There probably isn't a "hunting instinct" in the sense of a
genetically predisposed behavior, but there may be an ecological imperative
to hunt and that *could* be morally relevant. And, it is deriving a "ought"
from and "is" or perhaps a "was"  ;-)     (that means mildly sarcastic, if I
wanted to be biting it would be :->   and so on)

Tantillo: (B)  While I agree that hunting helps us participate in nature, I
think the
significance of that fact is primarily  aesthetic, and thus only
secondarily of moral significance (mind you, the two are connected in
important ways).  One of the arguments for art has long been that it
engages our minds, expands our mental horizons, involves intense
concentration, and frequently reaches the level of a passion or love.
Arnold Berleant for one, says that (opposing Kant, who emphasized
disinterestedness in aesthetics--although Kantians here could tell us more
about that I hope . . . ) art's power over us lies principally in its
unique ability to engage us at such intense levels--and I think that
hunting and fishing at their best reach this level of intensity of
emotional engagement.  Is the significance of this engagement
with/participation in nature that it reduces us to "plain citizens of the
biota" in Leopold's words (Jones: "as essential members"), thus making us
properly humble with regard to our station in life and in nature?  Or is it
primarily an aesthetic phenomenon, and helps us fall in love with nature
and improves the quality of our lives?  I don't know. . . I'm now sort of
thinking out loud here.  Hope you all don't mind . . . but I think this
relates to our broader discussions about humans' appropriate role in nature.

As an aside, while I'm in "book review mode"--one other reason I think
Jones fails to deliver, going back to the book jacket: "Here, for the first
time, is presented a legitimate ethic that not only justifies hunting but
places it in the larger context of our current environmental porblems and
debates." Well. . . OK, but "for the first time"?  Ortega has been there
before, as well as others (Leopold included), and while they may not have
contextualized hunting in terms of 1990s environmental management, I guess
my feeling is, so what?  Jones comes up with a nice synthesis of Leopold
and Ortega, but to my taste (and I admit, I'm a much more critical judge
than the "average" reader) much of his book then is too derivative, not
original.  Why not just read Leopold and Ortega straightaway?


Bissell: Will, thanks for the tip on Jones book. However, I find much in
Ortega about the evolutionary role of hunting, albeit not directly. Ortega
wasn't a biologist, but he nailed the significance of recognizing our
natural role. Paul Shepard discusses Ortega at length in "Traces of an
Omnivore." Leopold nailed our ecological role, but if you read all of this
essays on hunting, you can see that he also agreed with the transcendental
view that hunting was "uplifting" and "empowering." He also justified
hunting on Nationalistic grounds which use to make me uneasy until I got
looking into other modern cultures' views on hunting.

Not sure we got to the point. Do you or do you not feel that our
ecological/evolutionary role as omnivores/hunter/gatherers constitutes a
basis for an environmental ethic?

Cheers ##:-]    (that's Lyle Lovett, has nothing to do with what we're
talking about, but you asked for humor and I think it's funny.)

Steven



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