>I'm very suspicious of an ethic which rests on the premise that we have
>moral obligations to nature because we, humans, are of a "higher" nature.
In
>an evolutionary sense that is incorrect; lots of species have evolved more
>recently than Homo sapiens (sic), sheep for example.
I disagree with this steven. I DO believe that humans have obligations to
nature becase we are of a higher nature. We have obligations for the very
reason that we are aware that obligations exist. Hmmm, it's hard to defend
that, but I'll try. We understand that each (major) decision that we make
is going to affect not only ourselves but the world around us. We must take
into account all things before making a decision. Now, this doesn't seem
practical for each and every decision, but if we can first construct a
framework FOR decision making, based on first considering all things (I
would say for all LIVING things), then we can make all other decisions by
referring to this framework. I think that we should consider all living
things as equal to ourselves, with us being 'first among equals' as it were.
I believe that we have the obligation of being stewards of the earth,
because we are stewards of the earth, whether we believe it or not. The
decisions that we make will affect the earth and all living things on it.
This cannot be said for any other 'species'. I'm not sure where to go with
this from here, but i trust further discussion will bring out all the
important points...
spirit
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|