From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: In Search of An Environmental Ethic
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:48:55 GMT

kerr@redgum.ucnv.edu.au (r.kerr) writes:

>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.

Ok.


>>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.

Well, this is your personal experience and testimony which I
of course cannot dispute.  I simply don't think that the people
here that you are addressing and engaging in debate with are to
be fairly characterized in this manner, at least with respect
to what you seem to what to infer from such an observation.

Permit a counter-example.  Many people enjoy an action movie
where an incredible amount of violence is depicted between the 
good guys fighting it out with the bad guys.  Now, many people
simply smile, or at least don't seem to shirk and groan, when
such violence is enacted.  Does this mean that such people
"like" violence?  Are we to infer that such people will committ
violence?  Of course not.  WE are simply inferring far too
much from a mere surface appearance of things.


>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?

I would simply take them at their word.  I recoil when I see razor
blades and shape knives, but that doesn't mean that I think such
things should be abolished.  In fact, I still use them.


>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.

Well, I completely agree that many people indeed have some odd notions
about the natural animal.  One of those pernicious notions is that
of "good" animals and "bad" animals.  Snakes are bad, kittens are
good.  What nonsense!  The unfortunate  think is that the 
maligned animals suffer for our ignorance.  For instance, one
researcher placed a rubber snake on the side of the a small
highway in one of the mid-southern states of the U.S.A.
About 1 in 10 people actually swerved to the side in order to
hit the snake with their vehicles!  If fact, a few people
actually stopped their cars to drive backwards in order to
again run it over.  No bravery, no rationality is here being
evinced.  Just a stark prejudice and animus towards those
animals deemed "bad".



>>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.

I thought you wanted to talk about environmental ethics?  Now
you return to the gendanken experiment that you earlier 
dismissed.  It indeed seems to have at least stuck in your
mind  ;-)

Now, if you think the above is an answer, please work it out.
Remember, simply being different does not in and of itself
warrant special treatment.  After all, every species is
different from each other.  I simply limned on such difference
with respect to human beings.  Now, as William James would
ask, "is this a difference that makes a difference?"


>>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?

Maybe so, not not inevitiably so.  Indeed, all scientific knowledge
is "corrigible" knowledge, not absolute truth.  Nevertheless,
we must start with what we have in hand, even if it is not
the complete truth of things, even if at times it is not
"realistic" but is at least justified belief given the current
state of our knowledge.  Interestingly, even wrong theories
can give rise to new discoveries, new knowledge, and may
even "work".  Flat plane geometry is simply "wrong" for
the kinds of curved space we have on the planet, yet as
an approximation it works just find for building bridges
and so on.  

Anyway, I don't see how any of this refutes my good point that
we cannot, and do not, simply justify our morality on the basis
of what non-humans naturally do.  Just because they rape, doesn't
mean that we should rape.  Just because there is predation and
meat-eating doesn't entail some moral categorical imperitative
that we too much kill animals and eat them.
The argument, "animals eat meat, why should we?" simply begs
the question and is no argument at all.


>>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.

Ok, I'll post some thoughts about this view of "respect towards nature".


>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?

Again, you are attempting to dismiss your opponents by psychologizing
their motives for believing such and such.  I could do the same
(especially since I have worked as a psychologist in an outpatient's
mental health clinic).  

Indeed, I could with the help of Enerst Becker's classic, "Denial of
Death", completely turn your argument around.  Instead, I
prefer that we move on to a more discursive level.

                                              ted

Xref: sparky rec.food.veg:10150 talk.politics.animals:9431