-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, March 19, 1999 8:19 PM
Subject: Environment vs. genes
(snip)>
>I agree with you here Robert. It seems like someone (I forget who) was
>agruing that genes were ethically more important because they are
>objectively real and that ecosystems are not. I was arguing that neither
>are objectively real in that sense, and that therefore they are ethically
>equal. But I agree with what you say about higher order. Ecosystems are
>more valuable in that sense, and I also believe that they must recieve
first
>consideration. As I understand it, a previous argument was saying that
>since they are not objectively real, that they should recieve no
>consideration.
>
Bissell here: I think I'm the "someone" and I wanted to clarify something. I
*am* saying that genes have objective reality and ecosystems are
abstractions. I am *not* saying that means they are ethically more
important. In fact I believe ecosystems are ethically more important than
individuals or genes. However, my point was at *if* ecosytems were
objectively real, it would be easier to construct ethical rules for them. I
think it's very difficult to say "why" ecosytems are worth protection for
intrinsic reasons rather than for the objective values they have for
individuals if they are abstractions.
Sorry if I led anyone to think I don't value ecosystems ethically.
Steven
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|