Hello Steven,
It seems to me that there is possibly a slightly different read on your
post. One point has to do with the nature of the ethics itself. The other
point has to do with the extent to which the practitioners are conversant
with the science of ecological system itself. It seems to me that it is
very possible to have a very sound ethical foundation that might however be
applied without understanding the way the system(s) operate. The ethical
principles must have been developed in a much more fundamental (simpler)
world without the sorts of international transfer relationships that exist
today.
Our responsibility, it seems to me to address the ethical formulation and
then see how it might apply in today's interactive ecological/economic
system(s).
The folks in the citation do not appear to understand the differences
between the intereaction of the several systems (very little relatively)
when the ethic was formulated and the way those systems interact today.
Does this make sense?
Sincerely,
Ray
==============
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Bissell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 8:38 AM
Subject: Buddhist environmental ethics
> I've been reading on environmental issues in eastern Religion recently
> and will have something to say sooner or later, but here's something
> that caught my eye as an example of foolish behavior in the cause of
> something worthwhile.
>
> http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/07/07052002/ap_47749.asp
>
> Steven
>
> On the other hand, prophets have a way of outlasting politicians.
> Gandhi has outlasted Nehru, and it appears that Confucius will outlast
> Mao Tse-tung.
> Huston Smith
|