I think this was intended for the list. Thank you Ling for your reply.
I agree that animals of any sort have levels of communication. I agree that
wild animals within the context of evolved ecosystems are worthy of moral
regard. I do not think that this is because the animals are similar to
humans however. I feel that moral regard is dependent upon the condition of
being part of a biological community (=ecosystem)and fill the evoloved role
within that system. I don't especially feel that this moral regard means
that individual animals have to be treated with the same type(s) of moral
regard we treat other humans. They are two different types of moral systems
with different parameters. Moral treatment of human to human is largely a
cultural/social situation. We have worked out the rules of conduct by custom
and rational induction.
The "rules" of moral behavior for environmental ethics are ones which we
derive by observing the functioning of ecosystems and detection of the
specifics by observation of the general function. I *think* this is what
Leopold meant by "stability" in his synoptic statement of morality.
My point about the protest at the WTO meeting were meant to show that some
environmental issues have found a way into the core values, (=custom) of a
broad segment of the public. Thus they are becoming culturally accepted.
This is not, however, an "extenstion" of human to human ethics, but a new
moral standard arising.
Steven
http://www.du.edu/~sbissell
What we lost with that wild, primal existence
was a way of being for which the era of
agriculture and civilization lacks counterpoise.
Human life is the poorer for it.
Paul Shepard
-----Original Message-----
From: Wong Ee Ling [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 6:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Heart of environmental ethics
Your expression needed time to read or even more than one read but it was
worth it.
I think you have made an important point towards the fact that most of human
endeavors to wildlife protection or environment conservation was based on an
'extension' of our own species' right to maintenance, and that is a faulty
or words less strong, a misperception.
Animals are a different species from humans but it is my experience that
they have conscious intellect not inferior to mankind except that they
convey it differently (of course) and even within animal, every species
communicate differently. Humans define another of their own as 'thoughtful'
or 'spiritual' if the levels of communication between the two individuals
have reached the capacity for non-verbal abstraction (more than just body
language), like being felt or mutual agreement and interpretation of a
symbolic abstraction that draws forth quite similar conclusions to enable
similar actions - we call that spiritual or the person is 'profound'. I
think animal lovers or people whom has worked with animals in the wild
(caged ones may not work) will notice a similar capacity amongst animals, if
you stay long enough in contact with that species (although this is not
necessary). This is because there are people whom are less sensitive and
will not detect any such communication even from their own fellow beings!
But those amongst us whom are sensitive (and believe me the animals are very
good at detecting such a person) will be able to experience that such
'spiritual' communication takes place.
Given the recognition then that animals (especially higher level animals)
are but that = a different species from mankind, and not inferior to us,
perhaps humans should accept that they have their right of place on earth
beyond an extension drawn from how much we understand them or have done
research on them.
Of course, this will not solve any WTO issues and part of human wanting
greater rights for the environment by protesting is an acknowledgement that
something needs to be evolved in our dealings with environment and other
species but as to what that is, no one has the answer that is why we keep
protesting! For one thing industrialist claiming that they are creating jobs
for people will hear none of this and 'developed' every estate their money
can buy - not surprising since mankind is the most 'alienated' from mother
nature, our actions may seem intelligent now but very myopic in the long
run. Yet we will survive......long after the animals are archived
records....... whether we invent some dumb space station that uses solar
energy or radio frequency to fly out of a degraded earth, some of our
species will always survive. Therefore, is there any Environment Ethics that
calls for a definition? Perhaps trying to know what is 'right' and what is
'wrong' is an ineffectual approach. Perhaps, there will be just a
delineation of those that will put human needs beyond other species and
those that will see that we are all one spiritual whole and as usual, humans
will compete or fight to be on top of the other - is there ethics
non-evolved ?
Regards,
Zin
> ----------
> From: Steven Bissell[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 2:50 AM
> To: enviroethics
> Subject: Heart of environmental ethics
>
> Some time ago Adam G. asked me to define what I considered to be the "core
> of environmental ethics" and some things about animal rights. I think
> Chris Perley and Jim Tantillo have taken care of the animal rights issues,
> but the question from Adam as to my beliefs about the core of EE is fair
> enough. I've taken a bit of time to do this, but the recent protests at
> the World Trade Organization sort of got me on it again.
>
> I started thinking seriously about the role of humans in the environment
> about 35 years ago. Since that time I've been either academically or
> professionally involved in environmental protection, primarily with
> wildlife. I stayed in school until I had a MS in ecology, specializing in
> large and small mammals. I then worked for 20 years in wildlife protection
> and later got a doctorate in environmental policy analysis.
>
>
>
> One of the hardest questions to answer about environmental protection is
> "why?" Why save endangered species? Why worry about air, water, soil,
> noise, or any other type of pollution? Why develop policy to protect "the
> environment?" which, to many policy makers is an abstraction.
>
> One of the answers, and it never felt "right" to me, was Human Health and
> Welfare. If some action or the prevention of some action protected the
> well-being or furthered the well-being of humans, then we seemed to be
> able to justify environmental protection. Because of this I spent several
> frustrating years developing a "cost/benefit" analysis system for
> endangered species and wildlife habitat protection. I did develop a system
> of rating habitat in such a way as to allow county governments to develop
> zoning ordinances to protect wildlife. I was also involved in development
> of a law to protect in-stream water for aquatic habitat. However, for the
> most part this was a very difficult and trying time for people such as
> myself. Despite early enthusiasm of environmental protection, the Reagan
> era eroded most gains and, while some types of environmental concern
> became mainstream (recycling, etc.), there remained the issue of "why"
> protect the environment for reasons other than human benefits.
>
> One of the other reasons, most often seen amongst non-professionals in the
> environmental movement, was because "it was the right thing to do." It
> made them feel good to admire nature from a distance, see movies, read
> books, go hiking, birdwatching, and so forth. Now mind you, I did and do
> all that, but I never felt it was a good reason to pass policy rules or
> legislation, it was just something I did because I enjoyed it. I 'think'
> this is the extension of ethics that Adam refers to; in other words we
> "extended" our humanistic regard for the rights of others to the
> environment because it makes us better people in the long run. The trouble
> is that is a one-way street in all the important ways and it makes
> environmental issues only important in so far as they reflect human
> perception. I know as an ecologist and evolutionary biologist that our
> perception is very imperfect; animals and plants do speak to us, but in
> torturous ways filtered by time and alien distance.
>
> I think that the idea of extending human ethics to the non-human world is,
> in most ways, an illusion. We can "extend" ethics from adult males living
> in cities and owning property (the Socratic notion) to a larger and larger
> group of humans, maybe ultimately to woman and children. But when you
> reach the level of species you are going past something other than a
> cultural/social barrier. The species barrier is a reality in evolutionary
> and ecological terms. The word "species" is not arbitrary. It indicates an
> absolute difference in all the important ways. To "extend" a human value
> to other species is, is seems to me, a mistake in logic. If, for example,
> I "extend" the prohibition of killing one my own kind to animals, it puts
> me in the interesting dilemma thinking that female cape hunting dogs that
> eat the offspring of rival females are "immoral." As an ecologist I know
> that to be incorrect. Infanticide and cannibalism are common among some
> predators and keeps the population at levels where starvation and/or harm
> to the prey base is avoided.
>
> So, what is at the core of environmental ethics? Well let me think about
> ethics in general. If I/we judge something to be "wrong" we seem to be
> able to identify it as a group within our culture. We can say, "That
> doesn't look right to me" and, as a group, agree that this or that is not
> acceptable. We then pass laws or evolve customs to prohibit the action and
> to punish those who violate the taboo. We can tell if the taboo is working
> in the same manner. If someone is punished for something we say "they
> deserve that," or "they got off easy," or "they didn't deserve that." Now
> most of this involves individual behavior and is person-to-person
> behavior, or maybe person-to-society behavior. We don't, in most cases
> deal with organizations, agencies, governments and such, although there
> are exceptions; i.e. Nazis and such.
>
> This brings me to what I consider to be the 'core' of environmental
> ethics. The recent protests at the WTO convention in Seattle are directed
> at two primary issues. One is the rights of workers and the other is
> protection of the environment. In other words, lots of people are saying
> "they way you treat people and the way you treat the environment is
> unacceptable" to the WTO. This indicates, to me, that human rights and
> environmental rights are core values amongst the protestors. That does not
> mean that human rights have been extended to the environment, it means
> that a new ethical norm is being evolved.
>
> I see the time coming when morality will be judged upon environmental
> issues which a majority of society (probably world society now) will
> accept and say, "they deserve what they got." In other words, egregious
> insults to the environment will be judged along with insults to human
> rights. Two issues, not two sides to the same issue.
>
> So, what do I think are the issues (prediction is a risky business,
> especially about the future)? If I am reading issues correctly I see the
> protection of biological diversity, water supply and pollution and, air
> pollution as the most likely set of environmental issues to achieve
> ethical status. The last two are related, but not in all cases, to human
> health and welfare. The first is an issue of understanding the role of
> "others" on this planet. I do not feel that animal rights as we are seeing
> it expressed today will ever become a core value. Vegetarianism and all
> that are "alien" to human ecology and will not, in my opinion, become wide
> spread, nor, in my opinion, should they.
>
> Sorry I took so long, and took so long. But the list has been quite these
> days. So this might get someone else going.
>
>
>
>
> Steven Bissell
>
> http://www.du.edu/~sbissell
>
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
