From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Is Respect For Nature Enough?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:28:14 GMT


IS RESPECT" FOR NATURE ENOUGH FOR A VEGETARIAN OR ECOLOGICAL
ETHIC?

(1)  BEYOND MERE SELF-INTEREST
The first problem is to more carefully define or flesh out what
it is we mean by a "respect towards nature".  For some, it simply
means that unless we do show some proper regard for the diversity
and integrity of ecological systems, we in turn will be
endangered or deprived.  This kind of elucidation, however, would
have "respect for nature" reduce itself to simply human self-
interest and such a criterion will allow all manner of
exploitations and destructions of ecological systems and
extinctions of individual animals so long as we humans are not
endangered or materially deprived.  Hence, unless we go further,
the high sound plea for a "respect towards nature" simply becomes
superfluous and merely bootlegs the instrumental principle of
human self-interest (in its more crass materialistic sense) as
supreme.  Nothing, therefore, is changed by rewording old
practices and attitudes with high sounding phrases signifying
nothing.


(2)  BEYOND VAGUENESS:
If this "respect for nature" principle is not superfluous, we
need to flesh it out.   As it stands, the notion of "respect
towards nature" is kind of vague as to how such respect is to be
properly demonstrated (is it ok to destroy nature if only I first
say a respectful "thanks a lot"?).  Now, you have tried to flesh
this principle out by examples like trees being given some
measure of respect because "they are crucial to the oxygen
content of the air, which we must have to survive".  Human
survival interests is the only criterion of "respect for nature"
that you have so far suggested.  As the only criterion, then it
would be permitted to destroy the environment for other creatures
as long as we do not destroy it to the point where human life
itself is threatened.  It this really good enough for an
environmentalist ethics?   I think that you would agree that we
should go further and protect the environment for other creatures
even at the expense of some of our own insatiable self-interests.
Human life can well survive without whales, elephants, whooping
cranes, sea turtles, etc.  Indeed, human life can survive quite
well with a greatly reduced populations of birds ** other
mammals, fish, insects, soil bacteria, etc.  A stronger principle
that of human survival is needed.  We would need to set some
proper limits on human self-interest or at least define those
interests in a much broader manner than what a mere survival
criterion would allow.

3.  "RESPECT FOR NATURE" NEEDS THE CONCRETENESS OF PRINCIPLES
LIKE THAT OF ANIMAL RIGHTS:

Now, before I go any further permit to confess that I too think a
respect for nature principle has a lot of merit and possibility.
I believe in it myself.  It only needs to be better fleshed out
and not reduced to a mere principle of human expediency for
survival, otherwise we are right back to the prevailing
anthropocentric view where the natural world is only valued for
its human use (i.e., human pleasure, profit or necessity).  Also,
it should not be bridled or made so depended upon
"contractarianism", as it has been called (see my previous
posting on contractarianism)

Now, the inherent value theory position I've adopted to defend
animal rights, is indeed LIMITED and insufficient in not being
able to generate the kinds of environmental ethics that I think
we would like to see.  In fact, I'm a pluralist who doesn't
believe in monolithic theories or principles to explain and
subsume all and every concern.  I have no interest in such
ideological posturings.

So, where does that leave us?  I think we need as a means to
flesh out our over-arching "respect for nature" some additional
principles like that of the pain-and-suffering or subjects-of-a-
life concern that we see informs both the vegetarian and animal
rights ethic.  Our "respect for nature" is thus concretized by
these more specialized principles that more clearly and
definitively guide our conduct with respect to, say, individual
non-humans.  In turn, maybe the respect for nature provides a
generalized principle to help interconnect our outlook on other
domains of our legitimate concern.

I also think we need as part of our criterion of "respect" such
non-instrumental values as that of aesthetics.  Not only the
diversity, the integrity, but also the "beauty" of natural
systems needs to be preserved.  Anyway, I'll not beg off from
further discussion on this issue, as we might be straying too far
afield from the primary focus of this conference, namely
"vegetarian foods, information and discussion".

                                    RESPECTfully  :-)

                                                ted


Newsgroups: rec.food.veg