Ian Howard wrote:
>John Foster wrote:
>>
>> Holistic moral philosophy is, I suppose, a moral philosophy that is
>> 'holistic' as opposed to a partial or incomplete moral philosophy. Since I
>> do not know of a moral philosophy that is holistic I would think that it is
>> one that considers the birds, beasts and flowers in addition to marginal
>> groups in societies. Only a conscious and freely dissenting/consenting human
>> being [or possibly a dolphin] can be moral since no other agent is
>> autonomous. So that would be my starting point. The rest would be more or
>> less subject to the one's moral sense of what is right and wrong.
>> I guess I'm still confused. A moral philosophy that considers flora,
fauna, and
>marginal cases would be a moral philosohy. Indeed, it could be an
extension of existing
>ethical theories or perhaps even a new environmental ethic. However, I
haven't grasped
>(yet) how it would be a 'holistic' moral philosophy.
>
>If, as Bryan Hyden states, a holistic moral philosophy is inclusive does
this mean
>that (1) all acts for good or ill fit, or (2) everything must be considered
in decision
>making? If (1) what criteria are used to make pronouncements? If (2) can
we take a
>workable stance?
Certain criteria could be proposed such that any act may be evaluated in
terms of 'compliance' with the moral philosophy regarded as 'holistic'. That
criteria could be proximal or exact. If part 2 were also enacted, then this
would serve as a criteria. A sort of paradigmatic proposition. Everthing or
all things considered is a workable proposition that could be used as a test
of any other criteria to evaluate whether a moral philosophy is 'inclusive'.
Part 1 in which all acts for good or ill fit is a result of the evaluation
of the action in terms of the criteria "all things considered" which has
been used by the Forest Service, for example, in promoting integrated
resource management. Only a retrospective consideration of the acts may be
possible to fully evaluate the proposition. This is because the actions of
the past were contemplated without knowledge of the consequences often. As
an example therefore the 'rules based utilitarian' whose aim it may be to
maximize the greatest benefit for greatest number of people is a proposition
that lacks consideration of the least and simplest benefits only because it
is least and simplest at the time of the evaluation of the act. In other
words, espousing the proposition that "all things must be considered" is
fine but more definate goals are needed and more exact criteria is needed to
evaluate acts. Is consideration strong enough as a proposition? Wouldn't
'all things must be protected' be stronger? It is the simplest of criteria:
to consider. Pay attention to consider since this is the highwater mark of
the utilitarian. Consider what in terms of what else? Maybe protection is
too strong. We can never know fully if the things were considered simply
because nature is herself an actor [in creating volcanoes, ice ages, etc.]
who often does not consider interests of her creations. Or so it seems.
In this way at least a path is cleared for more comprehensive criteria in
which to evaluate the actions of the moral agent. The main outcome may be a
'life cycle analysis' in which each phase of products is assessed in terms
of waste that may be added to the stream of pollutants that a company emits
to the atmosphere or water. In the appraisal of the life cycle analysis,
this waste may in turn be assessed for some useful use. A total cost
assessment may be completed, and the indirect costs of the waste be
apportioned appropriately to the good or service that the organization is
making. Product stewardship involves eliminating waste. Waste that often
ends up as a contingent cost or liability to the organization in the future.
Anyway one example only but a generic one is the 'cradle to cradle' idea of
product stewardship that may result from a 'holistic moral philosophy'.
>
>Specific to John's post, if it is the case that only autonomous rational
agents are
>moral then do we have an holistic moral philosophy or just more stakeholders?
The more stakeholders we have identified, the more inclusive the process of
evaluating actions that affect all stakeholders. Proxy stakeholders are
those that represent the interests of stakeholders who cannot speak or are
irrational or cannot be present to represent their interests: lumbricids,
Lupinus spp., Alnus. spp., and Peltigera spp. for instance cannot speak at
round tables or Environmental Impact Assessment hearings. A holistic moral
philosophy would be inclusive in as far as even a snail darter would be
represented an interest at the table. The one rule would be 'all things
considered'.
John
>
>--
>Ian
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
