Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: In Search of An Environmental Ethic
From: kerr@redgum.ucnv.edu.au (r.kerr)
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:06:20 +0900
Organization: UCNV, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia

Our site resurrected itself for an hour this afternoon.  Thought I would
take the opportunity to post my reply rather than email it to you, Ted.

In article <altar.720820582@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>Richard Kerr writes:
>
>>What I am trying to find is an environmentally sustainable 
>>lifestyle that does not romanticise nature to the point that 
>>predation is declared to be evil.
>>
>STRAW MAN ARGUMENT
>
>Let me begin by noting that no one has declared predation in
>general to be "evil".  Let's not set up a straw person opponent.

I beg to differ.  A majority of the vegetarians I know originally became
so because they were made uncomfortable by the sight of a predator killing
and eating prey on TV.  They react to this discomfort by withdrawing
themselves from anything which could remotely resemble predation.

When challenged by a question like :  "You don't honestly think
predation is _wrong_ do you?"  they respond with "No, of course not!"
But if this is true, why did they recoil from the image of predation
with such force?

One person I met would only eat one animal, shark.  Her reason was that
"sharks eat people."  Presumably she meant that they deserved such a
despicable fate.

>My quick reply is "yes" to your query about whether I am
>insisting upon different standards for ourselves as what we might
>expect from our closest non-human kin, namely, the chimpanzee.
>Would you go so far as to put on trial and execute a chimp who
>happened to kill an human being?  [Examples of this deleted]

No.  Every social species has its own way of dealing with intra-species
conflict.  Courts and trials are our method.  It was silly to expect other
species to submit to our rules.  Inter-species conflicts are the core of
the debate, though.  I'm sure you would agree that there are some
circumstances in which it is right to kill an individual from another
species, wouldn't you?


>APES RAPE EACH OTHER DON'T THEY?
>
>Ok, what is the difference?   Keep in mind that all species do
>have their species-specific capacities and traits.  Well, it is
>apparent to me that human beings do have a new vista of free
>choice enabled by self-reflection and an overriding of
>instinctual impulse.

I would posit this as an answer to your thought experiment about the
Alpha Centaureans.  It's interesting that it can be answered in your
ethical framework but not in mine.

>  [Expansion deleted]  For
>better or worst, that makes us moral beings, beings who no longer
>can unthinkingly depend up natural impulse to be the sole
>directive (hence, justification) of his or her behaviour.

Indeed, and the fact that we can choose allows us to think that we can
declare some unnatural actions "right" (e.g. defoliating forests) and
some natural actions "wrong" (e.g. I'm sure you can guess).

>  [Some other species commit rape]
>Furthermore, it has been argued by sociobiological
>theorists that human beings also have this built-in biologically
>evolved program to rape!

I don't think much of sociobiology.  Behaviours such as rape do not IMHO
have a biological cause.  I would join with other biologists that give
much more mundane explanations for them.

>Interestingly, these same theorists do
>NOT thereby justify rape as morally correct.  Why?  Once again,
>while we are "from" nature and are a part of nature we no longer
>have nature alone to direct our acts.  Animals behave, but we
>have to conduct ourselves in accordance with the "moral"
>conventions of our culture and in accordance to the dictates of
>our best "moral" reasoning.  So, let's move on to the task.

What happens when our moral reasoning is (albeit sincerely) misdirected?
If we start with an unrealistic view of the world we're sure to end up
with an unrealistic moral position too, aren't we?

>TOWARDS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
>
>Ok, it seems to me that ... maybe you want to
>somehow justify vegetarianism for human beings (or simply
>yourself) on the grounds of UTILITY for the environment.  I trust
>that this is not too far off from what you implied.

It's close.  Respect for the environmment rates pretty high on my list of
desirables.  I also wish to obtain an ethic that realistically reflects our
place and role in the environment too.

>  [Recommended reading and plea that we should preserve
>   more of the environment than is needed for mere survival.]

I whole heartedly agree.  I'll get onto those recomendations.

>The Alpha Centaurian thought experiment was only designed to help
>unearth what might be the underlying presuppositions behind our
>treatment of non-humans.  I'm sorry that you found it irrelevant,
>but that might be because you have defined for yourself a
>different domain of interest/concern, one that apparently does
>not concern itself with the diminished welfare and loss of well-
>being of *individual* animals due to OUR actions.   :-(

Obviously I am less concerned by the existence of suffering than my
vegetarian friends.  It may sound spooky and religious to say, but I
sometimes wonder whether their strict adherence to rigorous standards is
a reflection of fear about their _own_ suffering and death.  If we
accept death as not just inevitable, but also natural, will the death of
animals fill us with such moral anger?

Regards, Richard.  (kerr@redgum.ucnv.edu.au)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg