-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Britain Pushes the Panic Button on Biotech Foods
>>But Bryan, where does that leave you ethically?
>
>To tell you the truth Steve, I'm not sure exactly where that leaves me
>ethically, or where I stand ethically. I'm still working that out. I
think
>it's important to first be able to agree on a few basic fundamentals. I
>won't push the issue of whether or not you agree with me on this. But if
>what I proposed was true, that there was no difference from a fundamental
>ethical perspective between genes and ecosystems, I'd like to ask you where
>that would leave *you* ethically? I've had far less classroom time in
>ethics than many on this list. And so it's hard for me to apply my current
>insights and understandings into a commonly accepted ethical frame.
>
>If you are saying that gene
>>sequences and ecosystems are ethically equivalent, aren't your really
>saying
>>that all ethics are situational?
(snip)
OK, here's an example. In Colorado we have introduced a disease. . .whirling
disease. . .in trout. The intermediate host is a little worm which is found
naturally. In order to protect the ecosystem from the disease (it's pretty
deadly on native and introduced salmonids and maybe other fish) it may be
necessary to get rid of the worms, or at the least, most of them. So in
order to protect the ecosystem, it is necessary to get rid of a bunch of
genes, and maybe an entire organism. If gene=species=ecosystems (ethically)
how do you figure out what to do?
>
>Or do you recourse to anthropocentric
>>survivalism, i.e. those gene sequences and ecosystems that are of
>>"importance" to humans are deserving of ethical consideration, otherwise,
>>into the trash bin. (that last is obviously a bit of an overstatement, I'm
>>in kind of a grumby mood this morning ;-) )
>>Bissell
>
>Right. I have this to propose, and I'd like to see what any on this list
>have to say about it. I propose the possibility that there need be no
>distinction between anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric. If we as
>humans always acted in our *true* best interests, we would be
simultaneously
>be acting in the best interest of everything else. Everything around us in
>our world would at worst be unaffected. Of course this leaves a huge
>definition of our "true best interests" to be defined, which I readily
admit
>I'm not prepared to do, and which I suspect may not be able to be done,
>though I don't rule it out.
If you are saying that is some instances it is "best" for me to sacrifice my
own life for my own best interests, I'd like so see how? I think there is a
much more complex definition of "self interest," ala Stephen Kellert
_Kinship to Mastery_, but no matter what, I have an evolutionary obligation
to protect myself/near relations/species at the expense of others.
>
>Going a little towards the metaphysical deep end here, I believe that the
>universe is intrinsically harmonious. We as humans are different in the
>sense that we have the free will (yes, sounds religious doesn't it) to
>either be harmonious or to be non-harmonious with the rest of the
harmonious
>universe. Being harmonious is in our best interest. That last sentence
>sums up my argument in a highly simplified way.
>
What if you're wrong and the Universe is chaotic and random? Where does that
leave you?
Bissell
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|