Environmentalism or Individualism?

[jj]

Perhaps you can be both an enviromentalist or an individualist. But, chooseing ones self always seems to be the better option over giving up wellbeing for a tree.

"giving up wellbeing for a tree" seems very much like a false dichotomy to me.

 

[Avatar]

DSM,

You say that I'm not paying attention to A_Unique_Person's words--that he offered a clear-cut moral standard which you describe thus:

"Still not paying attention, huh? It's simply that nature should have rights as well as understanding and not upsetting the 'balance of nature' is important to the survival of man."

Sorry, my friend, but you aren't quoting him, and for good reason: those words don't appear anywhere in his posts. That may in fact represent his position, or yours, or your interpretation of his; but I don't know that, because he didn't SAY that -- and he didn't respond when I asked for his own words. So unless you can point to where he said that was his "standard," I don't think it's fair to accuse me of "not paying attention."

Second, let's address the following passage of mine, which you quote. I wrote:

"You posit as a value 'the presevation of animal life in order to further human life.' Nothing wrong with that, as it regards animals not as 'ends in themselves,' but valuable in terms of their benefits to humans." --Avatar

Don't the words "in order to further human life" simply mean that the author of those words was justifying animal preservation "in order to further human life"? What else COULD they mean?

And if, in fact, animals should be preserved "in order to further human life," then doesn't it logically follow that it's morally right for us to use animals for our own benefit?

I simply drew from that person's formulation the obvious logical conclusions; I wrote: "So I gather that you then agree with me that such activities as breeding, raising, capturing, or hunting animals for our food and clothing, and for our pleasure (as pets) are a 'good' thing?"

Do I have to spell this out in a formal syllogism?

Major premise: Animals should be preserved "in order to further human life."

Minor premise: Breeding, raising, capturing, and hunting animals for human food and clothing, and for enjoyment as pets, furthers human life.

Conclusion: Therefore animals may be bred, raised (etc.) in order to further human life.

Yet your response is first, mockery, then an accusation of "sophistry." But where's the sophistry? You didn't explain.

In fact, it's precisely these logical implications of the major premise that have led some people to posit (out of cloth) "animal rights" and the "rights of nature" as their logical escape clause, to prevent humans from using the rest of nature for their own well-being. And the logic of THAT leads environmentalists right down the slippery slope to the "extremism" you say you reject: the extremism of PETA, ELF, ALF, and the like, who simply take "animal rights" and "the rights of nature" to its logical dead end: opposition to any human activity that affects nature and animals.

But what exactly does it mean to say "that nature should have rights"? What are these "rights"? How are they defined? Where do they emerge from? How are they justified?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Avatar:

My moral standard, then, is HUMAN LIFE--because that's the source of all moral values and valuing. What furthers human life is good; what harms it is bad. Put anything above human life in your priorities, and you are degrading humans--the source of all values--to being less important than rocks, plants, and critters.

Thank you for this insight. Unfortunately it is either too simplistic in itself or you have just expressed it too simplistically.

Given your view, it would seem that the well-being of any human is more important than the survival of any non-human species. Some consequences:

1. Phytoplankton in the oceans produce the majority of oxygen available for breathing in the atmosphere. If a country or corporation decided to intensively harvest this source of food (so intensely that they might become extinct) in order to "feed poor starving humans", would that be OK with you?

2. The full interaction of the various species in regard to maintaining a viable eco-sphere (sorry, bad word, I know) is not well known at the moment. Given your moral philosophy, this is presumably of no importance. Hence, the dedicated extermination of all non-domesticated lifeforms or lifeforms currently viewed as unimportant to human welfare, would presumably be OK in regard to your moral philosophy. Correct?

3. The fact that a majority of species on this Earth have yet to be discovered and/or categorized and that many life-saving drugs of one kind or another stem from plant/animal species in the wild, would likewise be viewed as inconsequencial in your view. Correct? If not, kindly state where the line is drawn.

4. Lastly: Your moral philosophy impinges on mine. Given that the human species covers all continents, numbers of 6 billion and is in no immediate danger of dying out, I see no a priori reason that they must continue to increase their numbers. Especially when this unfounded expansion leads to the removal of habitat for other living species, and hence their extinction, at an accelerating rate. So, how do you feel that this impingement should be resolved?

 

[Avatar]

DanishDynamite,

THANK YOU for a post that is civil, philosophical, and responsive! How refreshing!

I have to do some stuff this evening, but I'll definitely reply in detail very soon.

 

[dsm]

Still not paying attention...

Major premise: Animals should be preserved "in order to further human life."

Minor premise: Breeding, raising, capturing, and hunting animals for human food and clothing, and for enjoyment as pets, furthers human life.

Conclusion: Therefore animals may be bred, raised (etc.) in order to further human life.

You don't see how one-sided this "logic" is?

This is an "nature exists to serve man" logic rather than "nature and man share a single world" logic. The laws of nature mean that we must use nature (breeding, raising, capturing, etc.) in order to survive -- this happens all throughout nature. However, the natural order is to use what is needed and nothing more. You seem to be willfully ignoring this idea and, thus, your arguments are sophistry.

Logging an old-growth forest when new materials exist or new-growth forests can be grown is an example of overuse with potentially severe local effects and is merely done to keep loggers working. Indescriminate fishing (both sea and lake) may be unnecessarily killing off species of fish and, thus, killing off the food sources of other animals with unknown consequences. Overhunting for lions (and the like) is changing the ecological balance causing some species to run wild and others to die off as well (with downrange effects still to be determined).

These are just a few examples of where environmentalists are saying not only do we need to conserve earth resources, but we also need to preserve the earth's ecosystem because we don't know the full extent of the consequences if we don't.

 

[BillyTK]

BillyTK,

Now what do I have to do to get a simple, direct answer to a question here?

Well, for starters, don't misrepresent someone's statements; it won't exactly endear you to them.

I asked you, quite sincerely, to tell me what you meant when you said there was an "easier way" to analyze the essay than by going through the references. You say that interpretation of your words is mistaken;

No, I said that attempting to pass off your interpretation of my position as my position is erroneous.

but you never explain what you meant by "an easier way."

I'll repeat my answer for you-critical analysis.

Instead, you respond with more verbal shuffling and rope-a-dope misdirection than Mohammed Ali in his prime, and chide me because I "choose" an interpretation of your words that seems, on its face, to be pretty straightforward.

Sorry, but sending us to a footnote reference on the nature of critical analysis is no substitute for a simple answer to a simple question.

I gave you a simple answer—critical analysis; how much simpler and clearer can I make this?—the link (not a footnote by the way, but a basic primer) was there to explain what this entails.

I'm asking you again, politely, just to explain your words, amend them, withdraw them...but to be responsive to a direct question about what you meant by "easier way." Is that an unfair request?

Well, yeah, when I've already answered your question. Heck, some might even consider it down right rude.

Another point. In an early post, I cited the names of MANY leading and famous environmentalists and mainstream environmental groups which were quoted in the essay. In your latest response, you condense all of these down to one name: Al Gore...adding a laughing smilie. As if the essay, or I, had only quoted him!

From the essay, eigth paragraph down, first line:

"[W]e are threatening to push the earth out of balance," warned former Vice President Al Gore in his book, Earth in the Balance. "Modern industrial civilization, as presently organized, is colliding violently with our planet's ecological system. The ferocity of its assault on the earth is breathtaking, and the horrific consequences are occurring so quickly as to defy our capacity to recognize them, comprehend their global implications, and organize an appropriate and timely response."

Now come on: play fair, fella. YOU were the one who raised the issue of "composition fallacies." Don't you think you're doing the same thing by ignoring all the many individuals and groups quoted in the essay, and which I named, and instead cherry-picking only ONE to ridicule? (One who, incidentally, wrote a bestseller quoted, hailed, and promoted by the entire environmentalist mainstream and the media as a major movement manifesto.)

I'm ridiculing Al Gore for the sake of ridiculing Al Gore. That is not a composition fallacy.

Finally, I asked you to explain your conception of what environmentalism means. If you think its so wrong to cite the beliefs and positions of leading greens because that supposedly distorts the REAL meaning of environmentalism,

Which I don't, I've nowhere claimed any such thing. What I did was illustrate the fallacious nature of generalising a particular set of characteristics to all members of a group, particularly one as disparate as the environmentalists.

then I asked you to tell me: What IS the real meaning of environmentalism? Your enlightening reply? "How is this relevant?"

Bearing in mind that, as you reveal here, your line of analysis was based on a flawed assumption, how else would you expect me to reply?

I am still waiting, waiting, WAITING for any self-defined environmentalists here who want to engage in a truly responsive discussion about that www.ecoNOT.com essay. Civility is more than just a tone; it is a respect for substantive engagement. So can we please stop all the sophistry, the evasive bobbing and weaving, the ducking of simple questions, and actually start addressing the positions set forth in the ecoNOT article?

Sorry, but at the moment I'm too busy correcting the assumptions you keep making about what I'm saying. Look, you've had a bit of a baptism of fire here; if you want to shake hands and wipe the slate clean I'm happy to do that and we can start afresh. But please if you're not clear on what I've said, just ask okay? And using the quote function might help when responding to other posters' points.

 

[a_unique_person]

"giving up wellbeing for a tree" seems very much like a false dichotomy to me.

The same point I have made.

The whole premise of his essay, which he never states, is the familiar 'libertarian' one. Nothing is allowed to get between me and my profits.

 

[a_unique_person]

Tony, guess you were right about A_unique_person not wanting to answer direct questions.

He denies he's a misanthrope and that he hates humans. So I challenged him on his terminology, asking him why he chose words like "alien" and "cancer" to describe the human race, rather something neutral. But when asked why he uses such nasty metaphors, his only reply is "leukemia is a cancer." So, leukemia is supposed to be GOOD?

White blood cells are good, when they go cancerous they are bad. When humans live one way they are good, another, they are bad. My analogy to a cancer is that when humans just grow out of control and take over everything, they are behaving badly.

This is pure sophistry, of course. Anyone can see that his comparing humans with aliens, cancers, or (now) leukemia only confirms that he hates the human race. He's not refuting that ecoNOT.com essay: by his own statements, he's simply providing its author with more confirming footnotes!

I like humanity and nature. Don't create a false dichotomy.

On the second point, I wanted him to justify his earlier claim that it's "wrong" for humans to regard nature as "ours." So I asked him why is it "right" for a robin or beaver to use the stuff of nature as "theirs," but wrong for a man to claim it as "his"?

Again, he evaded my questions of morality and of possession, and suddenly switched the subject instead to "damage." Humans, he says, do much more "damage" than critters. Okay, then: Is the beaver really "damaging" the environment in building a dam--if only a little bit? Is that "wrong"? Or is it "right"? If so, by what standard? How much "damage" is acceptable from a beaver, and why? How much from a human, and why?

I was replying to your analogy. Don't blame me if I do so.

Every living thing affects it's environment. Human beings, with their invention of tools, have developed the ability to affect the environment much more than any other animal in history.

This ability to affect the environment has been shown, in the past, to destroy eco-systems.

Any bets I won't get a direct, coherent reply?

Third point: in logic, the onus of proof is on a person making an assertion. This guy asserts that the loss of species is "wrong," and "immoral." So I ask him to support that assertion: by what moral standard, I ask, is it "wrong"? What's your standard of right and wrong--your morality?

Again, he just ducks the question. "What's yours?" he evades. Then he simply reiterates his initial arbitrary assertion: "For me, the extinction of a species is immoral." Well, DUH! We all KNEW that's his position. What I was asking for wasn't repetition, but a justification. But he comes up empty.

I am sorry to dissapoint you. I just believe it is wrong to have a world that will only have as it's megafauna man and some animals in zoos.

The only thing I know about his ethics is that somehow, for a reason he can't or won't specify, its "immoral" for humans to cause the decline, or extinction, of ANY species--presumably of ANYTHING, presumably at ANY time or ANY place, for ANY reason. But he can't or won't tell us: WHY? (I'll specify my own standard in a separate post.)

Perhaps it is something that can't be quantified. I believe there is a lot more to the world than that that can be measured. That old coffe cup inscription of "If you can't measure it, I'm not interested" shows a mindset that is incredilby narrow.

Finally, Mr. Unique was exercised that there was an alleged 90% reduction in the lion population. So I asked him a perfectly reasonable question: If a reduction in lions (or any species) is morally "bad," as he insists, then what number of lions is the morally "right" number on earth?

Again, no answer. Again, he changed the subject. All we can divine from his answer is the unsupported assertions that "extinction" is "immoral"--though he can't or won't say why, nor what extinction has to do with the subject of ethics.

So I ask again: if man is to be condemned as Evil for reducing the numbers in a species, there must be some sort of ideal baseline number that "should" be on planet earth. Okay, so what's the ideal number of lions? Tigers? Tulips? Amoeba? Is it wrong for us to reduce their number by one? How about ten? A hundred? Twenty percent? Seventy-five percent? How many are enough, how many are too few? Where do we begin being "immoral"? And why?

Folks, before one starts slinging around moral condemnations of humans for developing nature to support human life, isn't it a good idea to first get one's moral philosophy in order--at least to be able to reasonably justify your most basic claims?

Your position reminds me of the one from the Bible, that the earth is here for man to do with as he pleases. I think that a view of man like this shows an obsolete and barbaric view of the world.

Man is not the measure of all things.

 

[Tony]

Tony's statement is exactly and precisely an example of the new right-wing mean spirited "conservative" PC.

Tony's statement is an exemplar of PC, is a call to make some comments un-PC, and is the veriest epitomy and example of using PC to silence opponents. In short, it is a call to discount anyone who doesn't accept Tony's PC view of the world.

Pot, Saucepan.

Huh? Whose a$$ did you pull this $h!t out of?

 

[a_unique_person]

Huh? Whose a$$ did you pull this $h!t out of?

Yours?

 

[a_unique_person]

It's time that we, as human beings, assert our right to exist as our nature demands.

And if our nature is self-destructive? The human race was a product of the a different era. In that time, humans literally had to fight for their survival. We lived very short lives full of pain and suffering. Women often died in childbirth. There were no medicines. The average life span IIRC, was about 30 years. Half of your children did not make it to adulthood.

The human population hardly grew for hundreds of thousands of years.

Marshall McLuhan referred to the phenomenon of things 'flipping'. Assumptions and ways of acting suddenly get turned on their head. His example was the zip fastener. It was designed to be an invisible connector for clothing. Over time it has changed. You can now see it as the actual fashion statement on clothing.

The human race has changed from being one more species struggling for survival, to the species that controls the earth. We literally have the capability, right now, to destroy most life on the planet. No other species has anything that ability.

However, we still operate on the assumptions and morality of a different time.

It's time that we stop apologizing for our every footprint, for our every fence, for our every meal.

Ludicrous, emotive, strawman.

It's time that we stop regarding our homes as morally inferior to the trees they came from, or our children's needs as less morally important than Bambi's.

Another ludicrous, emotive strawman.

Also, it's all being done for our children. Yeah, right.

 

[Avatar]

Re "A_Unique_Person's" latest:

Recall I asked this self-described "philosopher" to provide what I had already provided: a specific moral standard at the root of his moral claims. His reply:

I am sorry to dissapoint you. I just believe it is wrong to have a world that will only have as it's megafauna man and some animals in zoos.

So my request for philosophical elaboration = the claim that I want a world consisting of only men and zoos. The term "straw man" has been used here a lot. I'd say this ridiculous caricature more than qualifies.

Next, instead of a rational response, he compounds "straw man" caricaturing of my position with name-calling:

That old coffe cup inscription of "If you can't measure it, I'm not interested" shows a mindset that is incredilby narrow.

And then again:

Your position reminds me of the one from the Bible, that the earth is here for man to do with as he pleases. I think that a view of man like this shows an obsolete and barbaric view of the world.

Look hard, folks. Nope, not an argument to be found here; just evasion and name-calling.

Fella, after repeated opportunities, you've shown that your intellectual cupboard is bare. I'm moving on to discussions with people who at least make an attempt to respond with civility, and who try to offer some reasons and justifications for their assertions.

 

[a_unique_person]

To A_unique_person,

That in fact is what most environmentalists seem to argue. But by doing so, they are defining "nature" to exclude HUMAN nature. We're not supposed to impact the rest of nature in any way.

But why? Why is it that only PEOPLE aren't supposed to impact the planet, use it, manipulate it, enjoy it?

That's the basic message I got out of that online essay. Seems sensible to me. So where's it off-base?

We are able to manipulate the world to an extent that no other species can. We could blow the whole place up, right now, if we wanted to. No other species has anything like the power that we posess.

 

[a_unique_person]

Major premise: Animals should be preserved "in order to further human life."

Minor premise: Breeding, raising, capturing, and hunting animals for human food and clothing, and for enjoyment as pets, furthers human life.

Conclusion: Therefore animals may be bred, raised (etc.) in order to further human life.

Conclusion, animals must be measured in terms of their utility to man.

 

[Tony]

Conclusion, animals must be measured in terms of their utility to man.

And why is that bad??


(let's watch him dodge this one)

 

[a_unique_person]

And why is that bad??


(let's watch him dodge this one)

Our morality is ours. It is a human construct. Why does the rest of the universe have to be judged in our terms? I like to think of existence of the universe in terms of it being this thing that we are a part of of, not as something that we define.

 

[dsm]

And why is that bad??

Because, much as we'd like to believe so, we are not God nor, in the end, are we any more special than his other creations.

(Note: this does not mean I believe in God.)

 

[Avatar]

Hey there, Tony,

Have you noticed that some folks here love to sling around moral terminology, telling us why it's "wrong" and "bad" and "immoral" and "barbaric" for humans to do this or that with animals and the environment...while they simultaneously deny that there is even any objective basis for morality in the first place?

Isn't this just a wee bit logically incoherent and inconsistent?

If there's really no objective basis for ethics, then it's logically inconsistent to use any moral concepts and terminology, such as "good" and "bad," to describe the behavior of humans toward animals, nature, or even each other. On the grounds of such relativism, all moral notions are devoid of content, meaning, and force. To be consistent, then, the moral agnostic or relativist has to abandon any notions of right and wrong, and simply conclude that just as animals may do whatever THEY want, so may WE. But if so, then their moral case for the "rightness" of environmentalism collapses.

On the other hand, if there IS an objective basis for ethics, why don't they tell us what it is? You certainly won't find it in the answers provided so far. I've repeatedly been asking some of these folks to identify (let alone justify) their ethical principles by reference to some standard of right and wrong. And we've all seen the vacuous responses to my questions. It's "immoral" to do this or that to animals and the environment, they declare. And why is it "bad" or "immoral"? No answer.

No, Tony, I'm afraid you'll never get a coherent answer here to your question about animal use: "And why is that bad?" Some of these folks want to use the language of morality against things they don't like; but they either can't or won't answer any questions about the basis of their moral claims.

As far as I'm concerned, until they do, their moral denunciations of human use of nature and animals can simply be ignored as arbitrary assertions, carrying no ethical weight.

 

[a_unique_person]

Hey there, Tony,

If there's really no objective basis for ethics, then it's logically inconsistent to use any moral concepts and terminology, such as "good" and "bad," to describe the behavior of humans toward animals, nature, or even each other. On the grounds of such relativism, all moral notions are devoid of content, meaning, and force. To be consistent, then, the moral agnostic or relativist has to abandon any notions of right and wrong, and simply conclude that just as animals may do whatever THEY want, so may WE. But if so, then their moral case for the "rightness" of environmentalism collapses.

Morality and ethics are subjective. In my subjective system of morality, it includes the notions of good and bad. One of the bad things is killing off species.

If you want to have a discussion on the philosophy of morality, the R&P forum may be what you are looking for. It is not my area of expertise, which is why you are probably tiring of toying with me already.

There is a guy there called 'Franko' you should meet.

 

[dsm]

As far as I'm concerned, until they do, their moral denunciations of human use of nature and animals can simply be ignored as arbitrary assertions, carrying no ethical weight.

Look hard, folks. No position, just rhetoric.