-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, April 13, 1999 7:07 AM
Subject: RE Env. Ethics and problems of suffering/ ecological evolution.


S. Bissell wrote:

if, for example, we were to "judge" a lion on its "lion-ness" wouldn't we
look at the evolutionary/ecological context to do so? A "good" lion stalks
prey, chases them down, kills them, and eats them (among lots of other
things of course). So, why can't we consider the ecological/evolutionary
context of human behavior to think about "right and wrong."?

sb

LD responded: I think we can but it can lead to several problems ethically
and
philosophically
speaking. Philosophically we would need to consider many philosophical
principles in order to apply the ethics into human behavior during
evolution.
It would be much more difficult for me to evaluate a person from 1720 then
for a person from 1720 in context of moral behaivor. Is the person from
1720 acting wrong for 1720, and how does that tie into 1999 in veiw of moral
behavior. Would the person from 1720 using an outhouse be wrong, even
though he is causing pollution in 1720, doubtful any cowboy considered the
ecological pollution from it. Now we may consider this behaivor "amoral"
because he is contaminating from a non point source with no septic system.
Because obviously if we did that today in our back yard that would be amoral
and we'd be fined. That's why I say it may be a difficult argument to prove
valid.

Now if we are asking evolutionarly how did we devolop to this higherarchy
for morals for 1999 without judgement then we are defining a parameter
which would work in such a case of studying  moral behavior in evolutionary
context.

Just the same, Its much more difficult to percieve the tiger from 200 yrs
ago. We would question if it had simular hunting behaviors and our
preceptions of the events may not be as accurate in studying lioness in the
lion.

Bissell writes: I agree that some *types* of ethical behavior, including
hunting, are highly relative to the specific cultural context. However, my
question is about the environmental ethic of hunting. Much of this
discussion has been taken up with whether or not the suffering caused by
modern sport hunting was justified. I don't think anyone would make that
argument if we were talking about subsistence hunting of 200 years ago. On
the other hand, if we were talking about market hunting of 100 years ago (in
the US) it would be a strong ethical condemnation.

Some, not moi, have argued that the benefits of modern sport hunting
out-weigh the suffering. That is a difficult one to get a hold of and I
don't know where I stand there. I think that in the US, sport hunting is a
highly significant cultural value. I won't go into that here, but in brief,
hunters are almost 95% white males who learned to hunt in the context of
being taught (initiated) by their fathers, uncles or older brothers. Only
about 16% of US residents actively hunt, but it is still those that do are
very psychologically involved with it. This is *not* an ethical
justification, just an observation. However, to *condemn* hunting because it
is a white male minority activity is not correct either.

My point was that hunting, in no specific context, cultural or otherwise,
was part of our ecological/evolutionary genotype/phenotype and *may* be a
justification as part of a single environmental ethic.

I'll admit that this idea is embryonic and may not make it to term, but,
other than rants and raves, I like the comments such as LD's. It helps me to
think better.
sb





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