sent this directly to Dreamer by mistake.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, August 06, 1999 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: Violence and intent Was Re: animal morality
>Bissell here: one thing at a time.
>
>(SNIP)
>
>"Dreamer: I don't really understand your confusion. If it helps you, I'm
>not attached to "early", "premature" or any other particular word. But
>I can't discuss any situation without using some word or another. You
>can pick the words. I'm talking about cases where, through human
>conduct, an entity is killed which would have lived longer absent the
>human conduct. Do you agree that such things happen? If they don't,
>then I don't understand what hunting is or what our discussion is about."
>
>(snip the rest for now)
>
>OK. so exactly what is the issue? Animal A is born into the world, lives a
>life of Y length and dies at Z time. How do you determine when Z occurs? Do
>you think there is a predetermined Z? And, interference with the equation
>which reduces Z to Z-t (where t=human conduct) is a moral issue?
>
>I'm really trying to figure out why Dreamer feels that the inclusion of
>human conduct into the life/death cycle of animals is *in itself* a moral
>issue? I agree that the specific human behavior may or may not be a moral
>issue, but Dreamer *seems* (and I could be wrong, I often am) that *any*
>human conduct in the life/death process is a moral issue.
>
>Steven J. Bissell
>http://www.du.edu/~sbissell
>http://www.responsivemanagement.com
>A journey to our primal world may bring answers
>to our ecological dilemmas. Such a journey will lead,
>not to an impulsive or thoughtless way of life,
>but to a reciprocity with origins declared by history
>to be out of reach.
> Paul Shepard
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|