Saturday, January 21, 2012

Prompt 11

http://smalls814.tumblr.com/

I have chosen to use Sean's post 10.  I chose to use Shawn's argument because I really liked his interpretation of the text.  I think that Shawn presented some ideas that also have added complexity to some of the issues that I thought were good arguments made by Callicott Shawn is able to show in the real world how their application is limited.  He refutes the Algonkian population analogy by stating that today there are many different cultures from different landscapes and a simple relationship with nature as the Algonkians had is no longer possible in our highly complex society.  I think that Shawn has denied the concept of animal liberation and has periodically throughout his posts because he believes in the superiority of our culture.  I think that Shawn is trying to accept an environmentalist perspective but is having a good degree of trouble because he is able to understand the complexities of the issue.  Moreover, I think that not only is his questioning healthy but crucial for developing a solid grounding for his philosophy.

One point that Sean and I disagreed upon was the real world application of Calicott's Ideas.  I found myself appreciating Calicott's acknowledgement for the fact that our nuclear families welfare will always come before the welfare of the community.  I think that this concept while perhaps contradictory to the overall message is more of a reflection of humanity as a species.  We all have special connections with our family and to suggest that everyone would one day put this aside for the greater community is irrational.  Our commitment to family is instinctual and I feel that Callicott acknowledges this and tries not to make the concept of land ethic contradict this so that it has more practicality in the real world.  Moreover, I believe Callicott's goal in mentioning this argument is to say that we can still foster a land ethic without compromising the welfare of that which is important to us, but rather add it to our consciousness and way we go about life.  He then puts into perspective how we can place different levels of value on our beliefs in a way that is not too radical.  I found this idea to be really appealing myself because I want to adopt an environmental ethic that I can implement into my life that is logical and does not impede my ability to live my life, but rather encourages me to live a life that considers the obligation to the environment in my decisions the same way that I would think about my obligations to my community.

Sean also pokes holes in some of the holes of the argument showing how having such a loose definition of what is positive in a biotic community can allow us to justify things that are not positive for animals.  He argues that if predators in nature are allowed to eat other animals then on what grounds can we reject humans using what means it has regardless of the impact if the overall impact is positive for us.  While I like that Sean is questioning the limits of what we can regard as acceptable within a biotic community.  And I think that this is definitely a gray area.  On one hand we have the animal liberation movement which dictates that all animals have inherent worth and are individually important, while on the environmentalist side we see that the interests of the community as a whole are what is important.  To establish whether it is ok or not for us to use other animals for our betterment we need to look at the larger picture.  If the impact that we are making from using this animal is having an overall negative impact on our biotic community then it is negative.  Perhaps the argument for environmentalism allows some leniency for animal testing because we are not damaging any ecosystem but rather raising animals as test subjects (which Singer would obviously have a problem with), to increase our overall good.  Thus,  I think that Sean leans more towards the ecologist point of view, but rightly sees some of the inherent problems because he understands some of its flaws.  I like that Sean has pointed it out because they have made me evaluate my own morals on the subject.

I think that my views are different because I have already decided that I like the ecological ethicist point of view, especially with some of the caveats that Callicott makes for these to exist in a world where we do have a nuclear value that is of the most value to us.  I think that today's reading has helped me to solidify my position because it has pointed out how the animal liberationist view is flawed and can never be fully recognized especially if we wish to lead productive lives.  The ecological point of view is not only productive in guiding our decisions I believe that ultimately it will help us in making decisions about the environment that will ultimately be of benefit to the human race.

3 comments:

  1. I agree with your view on family. For most people if not all the family nucleus is more important then the gretear good.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I found Sean's argument regarding the killing of animals very interesting. I found myself questioning this argument as well. The killing of animals is justified in nature as far as the predator-prey relationship is concerned. However, some argue that the consumption of animals is wrong due to their intrinsic value.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I completely agree with your view on Callicott's attempt to appeal the land ethic's applicability to our real lives. Leopold acknowledges the human's self-interested nature, therefore understands we will probably take action with intentions for what is best for our own family, but I believe it is better to live life making concious efforts to be considerate of the biological community, rather than just doing nothing but arguing why the philosophy doesn't work in certain instances.

    ReplyDelete