Good morning,
I have no competence in "ethics"; your discussions are therefore very
educational for me. My questions are for better understanding and would
appreciate your comments.
I think it was Steven Bissel who wrote:
>I don't
>believe in any "higher" forces or magic or outside reasons for ethics
.
>We
>should behave ethically toward the environment because it is in our best
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>interest to do so.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How is "our best interest" defined? Is "our" considered individually, or
community, or...? Does this imply that *if* it is in "our best interest",
it is ethically OK to kill, for sport or otherwise, a fellow human? If not,
why not?
At one time, it was ethically OK to hurt, kill, mutilate, etc., a slave;
they were not recognized as part of the human community. We now have
recognized that slaves are part of the human domain. Children and women
were subordinate to men and not entitled to the same ethical status as men.
Not so now.
Is it possible, now or in the future, that humans will recognize that humans
and non-human life are part and parcel of the community of life; that
non-human life should be treated, ethically, equally with humans? That the
home of non-human life - the ecosystem - deserves the same respect and
protection as that of humans?
It seems to me that a fundamental question is: "who counts for equal
consideration in any ethical philosophy?" How do we determine who counts?
Is that an ethical choice? Biological choice? Or...?
If there are no " "higher" forces or magic or outside reasons for
ethics...", what are the reasons or rationale for ethical judgements?
Sincerely,
Ray ([log in to unmask])
P.O. Box 698, Micanopy, FL USA 32667
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|