hi arron... i didn't really understand the central point of your
argument.... can you please sum it up for me? it seemed like at first you
were saying that it doesn't make sense to say that anything non-human has
needs or interests, but then later saying that we should go beyond the human
realm in our ethics.... let me know if i have misunderstood...
also, you used the examples of a plant 'needing' water and a car 'needing'
oil. these are not in the same ballpark imo.... it is in the interest of
any living organism to continue to survive (with some notable exceptions, as
when an animal will sacrafice itself for it's young, or some other such
example), but it isn't in the interest of a car to 'go somewhere'. i think
this is an important distinction... also, i similarly believe that it is
in the interest of an ecosystem to survive... just as a plant will grow in
different directions to situate itself toward the sun, or to better position
itself around other plants to enhance its growth, an ecosystem will also
make spontaneous changes to maximize its 'good'.... all comments are
welcome...
spirit
-----Original Message-----
From: SIMMONS AARON RAYMOND <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, October 24, 1998 2:33 AM
Subject: Re: Rule based utilitarianism and holism?
>i would like to see a positive characterization of 'interests' or 'needs,'
>such that it can truthfully be maintained that insentient, non-subjective
>entities possess them. what is an interest or need if not a feeling,
>sense of value, or mattered difference? we can speak of 'needs'
>metaphorically, in a functional sense, such as a plant 'needs' water or
>sunlight, or an automobile 'needs' oil, but this is only to say something
>like 'requires in order to,' where the end is something that is normally
>tended towards, but which is wholly unimportant to the entity. what is
>merely one-dimensional physical manifestation, whether self-organized or
>not, cannot be ascribed 'needs' or 'interests' in any empathizable or
>morally interesting sense. this common perception of insentient
>lifeforms as possessing 'interests' or 'needs,' especially present in
>environmental ethics, is really to grossly misuse, and subsequently
>mislead, the common and morally significant sense of those emotive terms.
>ecocentrists are running up the wrong track in attempting to defend the
>existence of interests in insentient entities.
>
>a further comment on the point made by corey re. callicott and
>'environmental fascism': the given quote only shows that callicott
>attempts (and i stress 'attempts') to evade a 'fascist' ethic within human
>communities. regan's charge of individual denial still applies full force
>with respect to nonhuman animal individuals. i've always found it
>interesting how many ecocentric philosophers exhibit a blatant streak of
>anthropocentrism and human chauvinism in their limiting and privileging of
>human beings to an individualistic moral respect. of course, both
>callicott and rolston attempt to justify this differential treatment with
>their constructed distinctions about the different 'types' of communities
>that exist in human culture and in nonhuman nature. i am positive that
>such distictions ultimately are fallacious and do not work, at least with
>regards to justifying the differential holistic vs. individualistic
>treatment. in particular, callicott brings up the notorious platonic
>human community ethic in order to show that community-based ethics are
>nothing new in philosophy. however, he fails to recognize that this
>'fascist,' non-individualistic ethic is the logical implication of his
>monistic grounding of ethics in 'the good of the community.' yet still
>humans are privileged, why? if the community is the true, single locus of
>moral concern, then why not advocate a truly holistic ethic in the human
>realm? (is anyone familiar with 'the borg' on star trek: the next
>generation?) to say that the human community, or human culture, is, by
>its 'nature,' individualistic, is only to beg the question. it's only
>individualistic because we want it to be.
>-aaron
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|