Hi Ray,

    Thankyou for your post in return, the word was BS'ers. I don't
like to sware, and rarely do. I used a very standard definition that
most philosophers would use. I claimed to you in the second post
I didn't nessacarly or fully agree with the definition as stated by
the definition I sent. But the problem for me, is how then do we scuttle
all the other ethos of ethics into one big group with the environmental
ethics.  I've learned from an academic- traditional perspective on branches
of philosophy. Philosophy- logic, ethics were considered  branches of
philosophy. exct. I think it would be possible to perhaps extend a branch
into an environmental philosophy,  but I don't know how well it would stand
up to traditional branches, like theology or how the
academic philosophers with training  would feel about that. Environmental
Ethics is perhaps the newest extension in philosophy,
and not recognized as such at this time. I would not prefer to throw
environmental ethics as the same as all ethics  because of what I do know of
ethical theory.  Almost every ethical theory in one way or another is wrong,
or can be countered. And in general it would be inhibiting arguments in a
number of limited ways.  Classical ethics has its own studies as well. And
radacalizing ethics within the environment, really wouldn't do anything,
other then make a mess in the shceme of the logic of philosophy itself.
(IMHO). Branching into environmental philosophy, however maybe something of
possibility. It extends
past ethics, or applications of and with that certainly could be a school
and an application with an even greater diversity, and maybe
of greater benefit, and certainly could extend past the questions
even you ask here.

Li-





In a message dated 02/26/01 3:58:26 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> Hello folks,
>
>  Thanks for your comments on my recent post.  I will reply below in the
order
>  that they were received and in as minimal verbosity as I can! :-)
>
>
>  Baselic (Li) wrote in part:
>  > Hi Ray,
>  >
>  >   Just wanted to respond to several points you made. Environmental Ethics
>  > is an applied field of ethics, which incorporates various schools of
>  thoughts.
>
>  Ray here:
>  I do not agree that environmental ethics is an applied field of ethics.  My
>  reading of the history of ethics (uneducated of course) is that the field
>  began with ancients considering humans within the environment within which
>  they then found themselves.  It happened that what we now call the
>  environment was a "trivial"(?) consideration in their day.  Now, imho, the
>  environmental situation within which humans find themselves is
*drastically*
>  changed.  So that, imho, what we call environmental ethics should be
>  approached as a potentially radical revision of the field of ethics.
>
>  What is the meaning of life within the radically different environment
>  within which we find ourselves?  What does that mean for the way we view
>  ourselves in the world including non-human?  What does that mean for the
>  moral fundamentals of humans in the environment?
>
>  I should say that it seems to me that we need to replace the word
>  "environment" with something like "ecosystems" to denote the total system
>  interrelationships of which humans are but one entity.
>
>  I hope this helps explain the basis from which I approach the question.
>  ----------------
>  > If you have ever looked at applied ethics, such as medical or business,
>  you
>  > would notice not to many writers bring out a school of thought in this
>  area
>
>  Ray here:
>  Those fields are very superficial in my experience.  And would benefit with
>  a reconsideration of the fundamentals that "ecosystems" ethics would
>  require.
>  ------------
>
>  [cut]
>
>  > certain acts-- themselves are ethical or unethical, I agree schools
>  > of thought can help to back these claims-- I have seen the list owners
>  > and other members in the past use thinkers such St Thomas Aquinas, Aldo
>  > Leopold, Henry David T,  Aerostotle, John Muir, exct. exct.  To back
their
>
>  Ray here:
>  I think it is time to question the "authorities" though I must admit that I
>  am much indebted to Leopold and some of the  others probably have something
>  to contribute in a "revealuation of all ethics".
>  ------------
>
>  [cut]
>
>  > tollen on the net here.  Despite the profanity you have raised an
>  interesting
>  > point.
>
>  Ray here:
>  I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by profanity.  I believe that I never
>  use profanity and would appreciate clarification.
>
>  Your thoughts on Definitions of Environmental Ethics are interesting and
>  they are part of my file on this issue.  But, imho and with respect, they
>  are not germane to the fundamental problems with EE as noted above.
>
>  Li, thanks for your thoughts, I hope I have been responsive.
>  -------------------
>
>  Steve Bissell wrote:
>  > And you have raised an interesting point. Is it possible for
Environmental
>  > Ethics to be both applied and a school of thought? I think so, and I
think
>  > that Holmes Rolston, Eugene Hargrove, and others show that. Some, like
say
>  > Sagoff or Paul Taylor are more in the area of applied ethics.
>
>  Ray here:
>  Yes, I do think that our earlier and present thinkers have alot to offer in
>  a *reevaluation of all ethics*.  As I tried to say above, I don't intend to
>  denigrate the scholars in this field but I think we need to go beyond the
>  base of received ethical thought that they seem to follow.  But I am just a
>  student - impatient with the pedestrian (imho) approach to an "Ecosystems
>  Ethics".
>  >
>  > So, the really interesting question is whether a "school" of
Environmental
>  > Ethics is possible? Isn't that what Leopold was saying? That Ecology and
>  > Evolution could lead to ethical decisions? A school of thought leading to
>  an
>  > applied decision.
>  >
>  > Steven
>  >
>
>  Ray here
>  Steve, I very much believe that we should start with Leopold's insights and
>  use that along with other leading thinkers to arrive at a new school of
>  thought, an "Ecosystem Ethics", on which the old ethics itself can be
>  reconstructed.  On which applied decisions *should* and *must* be made.
>  ------------------
>  Ray here:
>  I want to respond, at the end, to the following two comments of Chris P.
and
>  to that of Steve Bissell which started some of Chris's comments.  See
below.
>
>  Chris Perely wrote in part:
>  > humans.  The women on Survivors who could not condone the eating of meat
>  in
>  > her group is a classic symptom.  Some would rather die, than act
>  "natural".
>  > By itself, I would have no problems with that.  But this lack of
>  > appreciation seems also to be associated with an environmental evangelism
>  > that sees the solution as removing "culture", and denigrating humans who
>  do
>  > relate directly with nature each and every day (usually through their
>
>  [cut]
>
>  >
>  > Chris P
>  --------------------
>
>  And then Chris P., an a following post responding to Steve B. said:
>
>  > Excellent post SB.  re your question - is a basic awareness of the local
>  > environment essential to an environmental ethic?  I agree that this is *
>  > really* important.  To a * real* environmental ethic that accommodates
>  > humanity - yes.  But you might subscribe to an ethic that is based on
some
>  > romantic idealism/antirealism - and *ignorance* of both the local
>  > environment and your relationship to it may be a requirement to
>  subscribing
>  > to your ethical belief - ignorance is bliss sometimes - and so is self
>  > hatred of your own species, if your ethic requires self loathing.
>  >
>  > Often posts on this list have referred back to some essential
>  > ecological/environmental history realities as some test of what some of
us
>  > believe is a romantic environmental ethic - but they are environmental
>  > ethics all the same.  We just don't see them as solutions to
environmental
>  > problems.
>
>  Ray here:
>  In my view, it is imperative to characterize the issue as one of
*ecosystem*
>  which incorporates both human and non-human existance, actions, and for
>  humans ethical considerations.  I limit it to humans because we are talking
>  about *human decisions*.
>  ------------
>
>  >
>  > Establishing a logical framework is always a problem here though - the
old
>  > "no ought from is", naturalist fallacy.  We keep going back to what "is",
>  as
>  > a basis for our "oughts", or as a basis for invalidating other peoples
>  > "oughts" which appear to be based on antirealist ideas of nature (esp.
>  > ecology) or nature/culture (esp. environmental history).  Hence all the
>  > technical posts.
>  >
>  > Solution - reject the naturalist fallacy?????!!!! -  Or admit
defeat???!!!
>  > Perhaps ethics and reason are incompatible - which leads us to the
>  quicksand
>  > of subjective values.
>  >
>  > Chris P
>
>  Ray here:
>  I do not think that one derives "ought from is".  But I do think that the
>  "is" provides some frame of reference for considering what "ought" should
>  incororate - perhaps even as the context for "ought".
>  ----------------
>  >
>
>  Steve Bissell said:
>
>  [cut]
>  > cultures, they are environmental out of necessity, not out of some sort
of
>  > rational choice (or because they are eco-saints). To an Australian
native,
>  > the place the TV show is taking place is not a "wilderness" at all, it's
>  > just a place with certain characteristics. In one of the early tests they
>  > made the contestants eat worms and stuff the native Australians have used
>  > all along. The idea being, unfortunately, will you eat a worm to win a
>  > million $$, not survive. I think my question, will you eat a worm to
>  > survive, more interesting. The vegetarian wasn't willing to eat "birds or
>  > mammals" so, she's off the show. I don't think that means anything at
all,
>  > other than as Holmes Rolston has also noted, vegetarians cannot know, on
a
>  > basic level, their place in ecosystems.
>  >
>  > Steven
>
>  Steven,
>
>  You insult vegetarians on the basis of a TV commercial twist .  That merely
>  tells me that you are totally ignorant of that field.  It seems to me that
>  you are too narrow in your view that "vegetarians cannot know, on a basic
>  level, their place in ecosystems."
>
>  Imho, we have reached a place in our "evolution" where neither *some* meat
>  eaters nor *some* vegetarians know their basic place in ecosystems.
>
>  For myself,  I am a vegetarian.  Because, I know how to obtain the
necessary
>  nutrition on that diet.  And I believe that we are in the situation, in the
>  so-called developed nations, that our diet can severely impact our
>  ecosystems.  But, I am a strong believer in personal survival.  If that
>  requires that I kill and eat meat, I have & will do it.  And, if the case
is
>  sufficiently serious, I include human meat.  Though, I have wondered when
>  faced with planning for the serious case, if I would have the moral fiber
to
>  exclude women and children.
>
>  I am familiar with killing animals for meat & survival for myself and for
my
>  children.  I taught my children how to raise, kill, skin and butcher
rabbits
>  for sale to dudes because I didn't have enough money for allowances.  Fifty
>  years ago.  But, I am not in that situation now.  Today, imho, it is my
>  responsibility to try to understand how the wealthy people of the world (I
>  am now one relatively) can reduce their negative impact on the ecosystems
of
>  which we are an integral and overpowering part.
>
>  I wonder how many people here have had to live on the food that one's own
>  personal and direct efforts provide.  I give pride of place to any
>  aboriginal folks, former minorities, if there are any here.
>
>  Yes, I know that most people these days don't know what it means to live
>  without a grocery store.
>
>  All that tells me is that those who are concerned about ethics, about the
>  way humans impact the ecosystems, are responsible to find out how to inform
>  those who presently are uninformed.  It is not a case of pointing
accusative
>  fingers; it is a case of reaching understanding - among ourselves and among
>  the general population.
>
>  Thanks for all your comments.  I hope we can continue in this vein.
>
>  With respect to all of you, I am
>
>  Ray
>