A few thoughts on chapters one and two of the short introduction and
Dr. Oliver’s post on How the World Thinks. First of all, I am very much into
the idea of applied philosophy (p. 4). In our world today it is difficult to
reach a shared understanding of problems and solutions because we all live in
our own righteous bubble. I confess that I just don’t want (usually) to talk
with people that hold views different from mine. I am into confirmation bias. Philosophy
can help us with that. For example, Spinoza, as you will see, has made a great
impact my own appreciation of environmental matters, and a joint discussion of
Spinoza, regardless of whether you are an anthropocentrist or biocentrist or
have no position at all, will profit everyone. Spinoza and Plato can help us
deal with this crisis. I hope that in this class some of you do have different
views from us tree huggers. “Amicable conversation” with people holding views different
from mine, is what, I have found, makes college fun and profitable.
Secondly, I think that having an understanding of the concepts
of nature, moral standing, and value discussed in chapter two are critical to
having a discussion of the ethics, or the morality, of actions affecting the
environment. I read every day something about the effects of climate
change (in the Guardian this morning, this article: Unless We Change Course, the US Agricultural System Could Collapse).
I suspect that most people reading those articles think about the science of
the causes and effects, but not about the morality of the actions that led to the
causes.
Here is a confession. I remember as a boy, probably in the
10 to 12 range, sitting on the porch of my grandfather’s lake house, high above
the lake, and shooting swimming turtles with a pellet gun. I’m not proud of
this, more ashamed really. I could never ever do that today. Why not? Because I
have come to believe that I have a relationship with nature, and that those turtles
have moral value. I believe that I am a part of nature, that the turtle and I
have a kinship. Now, of course, there are many people out there who don’t make
this connection. They see themselves as apart from nature. Maybe some of you shoot turtles for fun, and
think that people like me are just wimps. But whether we see ourselves as apart
from nature or a part of nature, we both benefit from discussing the morality
of whatever we are talking about.
Week One activity:
Wed. 8/26, this post
Thur 8/27 Reply to Levi DQ re: value of environmental preservation
Thur 8/27 Comment on DQ re: "true self"
In the culture of hunting for "sport," especially in this region, many will resist condemning you for your youthful disregard for the integrity of turtlehood. At the same age I was not always nice to cats, myself. Not proud of that either. But I wonder if the ethics of hunting ought to be on our agenda? Will it ruffle any feathers, in present company, to broach that conversation?
ReplyDeleteNot at all. I believe that sportsman hunting and fishing are a crucial element of environmentalism worth discussing. You have, for example, entire ecosystems and lifestyles were fundamentally changed because of hunting (e.g. the near extinction of the buffalo dramatically affected Native American tribes). Conversely, hunting has been used as a management tool for wildlife services to manage invasive/destructive creatures (e.g. TN has used hunting to address wild hogs, FL has used hunting to suppress invasive pythons). There are pros and cons to sportsman hunting that I believe would be worth exploring.
DeleteGood point, Levi, about hunting as a conservation tool that may be indispensable to wildlife/ecosystem management. I'm wondering more about those who hunt recreationally just because it's a part of the world they grew up in, a tradition, perhaps for many a family tradition and part of their "heritage" (a loaded word these days, in conversations surrounding statues and ROTC Buildings and such)... Folks who never considered or conceived an ethical problem with killing defenseless, harmless animals, some of whom joined the NRA to defend their right to do so without compunction, who would laugh at the idea of turtles having moral status... I'd like to tell such people that they are wrong, not even to raise the question. (But I'd better make sure they've disabled their weapons before I do so!)
DeleteI never shot turtles as a kid, but I did catch many of them! My childhood home was backed with woods, and with that came lots of wildlife. We liked to catch turtles, salamanders, toads, you name it... just to look at and then set free. It was a fun thing to do as a kid, but looking back I feel kind of bad for the poor animals who were probably terrified of us!!
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting, because humans seem to be predisposed to curiosity about the world, which is one of the reasons why we have been able to advance ourselves over time. When is interference okay and when is it not? That is the biggest question I want to explore in this class.
I suppose in your case, shooting the turtles for food (as our class discussed in our zoom session) may be more justifiable than doing it solely for sport. But even then, there are decent arguments to be made against it (such as when we have the option to eat something else). Some might even say that shooting for sport is just fine and that it is part of our "wild" nature to hunt. I am not a hunter in the slightest and can't even imagine hurting an animal. But if I had to for survival, maybe my feelings would be different.
Maybe the philosophical answer to all of this is the infamous, "It depends."