Hello Ray,
Newcomer to the forum and your point raised is my first email.
I support your philosophical stance of emphasizing on 'eco-centrism' vs
enthropocentrism. Neverthess, is it something that human civilization can
rise up to? I know there is always this ideal case but when force of ecology
cannot support human desires (and for many today, desires are taken as a
survival,. a must-have and not an excess...) something will have to give
.... and 'pop' we are back to an enthropocentrist view of things. If
civilization is not ready to give up our 'space' for something more
definable like animals that has life before our eyes then how will
civilization be convinced at crucial points to 'forsake' that 'centredness'
for a concept call ecology - it's less tangible. It's a good perspective
though.
Regards,
Eeling Wong@Tenzin
#Senior Information Executive #
eServices & nnembership & Unit
> REGIONAL INSTITUTE of ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
> PSB Science Park Annex, # 04-08, 3 Science Park Drive,
> Singapore 118223
> Tel: 65-7772685; Fax: 65-773 2800
[log in to unmask] ###
> http://www.riet.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> From: Ray Lanier[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 1:00 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Heart of Environmental Ethics?
>
> Hello folks,
>
> I've been reading the back mail - seems to be mostly about animal rights
> and/or hunting, as usual. Reading in sequence, page after page like a
> book,
> raises some questions for me.
>
> First, it seems to me that the discussions are coming from at least 2 ways
> of viewing the world and the place of humans within it. One might be
> characterized as "strongly anthropocentric" and the other perhaps as
> "weakly
> anthropocentric". That is to say, that it seems to me that all the
> discussion assumes the primacy of humans; that determining how they should
> relate with the others (non-humans) depends on the perceptions of how
> humans
> would most be benefited in a particular relationship. One side seems to
> value as a measure something like "human pleasure" or "human freedom" and
> the other seems to prefer something like "human moral quality" or some
> such
> as a measure.
>
> All this is how I interpret the discussion at the moment; other views
> would
> help my understanding greatly.
>
> Second, it seems to me that there is at least a third way of viewing the
> world and thus the value standard by which human action should be judged.
> I
> am thinking that we might shift from anthropocentrism to something like
> eco-centrism (which of course incorporates humans as a part of the
> system).
> By that I mean that human action be judged by how that action affects the
> welfare of the ecosystem (and/or system of ecosystems). I am not prepared
> to define, at the moment, just how ecosystem welfare might be determined,
> but it seems to me that conservation biologists have much to say on that
> subject. In this context, the effect of human action on a particular
> animal
> or species would be judged by the impact on the welfare of the ecosystem
> and
> not on the specific part of that system.
>
> It seems to me that St. Augustine's dictum should play a role in the
> process
> of evaluating actions: "Act as you desire, so long as you act with love".
> (G. Wills, _Saint Augustine_, Lipper/Viking Book, 1999, pp 111+/-)
>
> Do any of you folks see any merit in this? What are the
> problems/difficulties? Or is it just senile nonsense? :-)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ray
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|