Prompt 10

This essay by Callicott I found to reaffirm a lot of the ideas that I have been building through this course with regards to Environmental ethics.  I liked that Callicott used many scientific arguments i.e. the use of Darwinian evolution to rationalize some of the ideas that have been presented without very much scientific background.  I like the idea that out of evolution we have come to respect the idea of ethics was purely evolutionary in that we "assumed limitations on freedom of action in the struggle for existence"(234).  This quote suggests that even before humans were able to develop rationality we had to develop the underlying philosophy that we exist as part of something greater and that limiting our actions we are able to better exist in the environment.  Furthermore, Darwin references that as the community becomes more successful in defending and providing for itself it will inevitably become more inclusive.  This argument is rounded out by declaring that ethics in society and community are correlated and that as moral development increases so will our ability to develop a land ethic.  I see the validity in this argument because as we analyze how we have interacted with our environment to get to the point where we are at we realize that it was through cooperation with our environment.

The next presentation is the idea of community.  Darwin points out the idea of a tribes people who present the idea of 'paragons of virtue' in that they will be willing to give their life to save a member of the same tribe but would be completely indifferent about a complete stranger.  And in that same vein he recognizes within the limits of the tribe people respect each other however, outside of the tribe unspeakable acts are justified.  A barbaric concept yes, but does it not reflect how we interact with the world, to some degree we do not care about people outside of our community wherever you choose to draw that line.  What Calicott argues is that land ethics is merely just expanding our idea of "community to include soils, water, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land" (236).  I like the final culminating idea that is when the idea of 'biotic communities' become popularly accepted the concept of a 'land ethic' will inevitably follow.  Calicott also goes even further to acknowledge that the next step to realizing this ideal is to establish a universal idea of ecological understanding.

I like that Calicott's ideas have real implementation acknowledging the concept of an ecosystem.  I feel that past arguments that we have read enforce a concept of equality of species rather than the importance of the whole community.  When we focus too much on the equality of species we get caught up in arguments about making meat eating unethical because it involves the taking of another life.  However, land ethic dictates that the concern of individuals is secondary to the concern of the biotic community as a whole, allowing for the complex ideas that creatures need to eat other creatures to survive and so thus, promotes the health of the community as a whole and is thus, beneficial for the biotic community.  Calicott is even able to point out why it is difficult for us to adopt these concepts because previously our moral theory has been 'psychocentric' that is concerned with the ideals of things that have conscience and that this philosophy is outdated.  I was also intrigued by the fact that Calicott does not merely toss up this idea and leave it as some unattainable moral idea, he points out that our ability to understand the holism of land ethic our moral sensibilities must be shaped by ecological understanding.  However, it is clear why it is hard for us to think in terms of this idea because as William Aiken points out,"massive human diebacks would be good.  It is our duty to cause them.  It is 90 percent of our numbers", thus pointing out Regan's idea of 'environmental fascism'.

What I found most interesting about this article was how Calicott allows a way for us to integrate land ethic into our lives.  He presents that the idea while human morality and land ethic are not contradictions, alterations in our ideas of morality must be in order for the idea of land ethic to be accepted.