H.C. Ellis writes in response to my puzzles about the meat-eating discussion on
ECOFEM:
>I think the question of the pain of carrots is a fair question...the larger
>question is whether a person has the right to take the life of a plant.
I, too, think "carrot pain" is a fair question and I like the "larger question"
even better. I was trying to suggest there might be ways of answering these
questions [in opposition to the suggested "personal choice, do it if you like"
views that were proposed]. HCE also writes:
>Perhaps its [carrot's] life has meaning to it in some sense we cannot
>understand. If it didn't, I wonder why it struggles so hard to live...
This seems to me to give away the advance of the earlier suggestion and to
repeat the kind of move that puzzled me originally; viz., language such as "has
meaning to..." and "struggles to live" has some assignable meanings or
uses which give us a place to start [not necessarily finish]. The discussion I
wanted to open [since I was puzzled by comments made] is: Does ecofeminism have
or need some kind of ethical defense or explanation? Tj's response [to Brian?]
seemed to me to raise the question again: Of course, whatever decision I make
is MY decision, but it doesn't follow it's made FOR me--it might be made because
there is some overriding moral claim ON me--so, is there an overriding moral
claim or set of them on ecofeminists?
HCE also writes:
>suppose a person or animal who because of a neurological condition couldn't
>feel pain. Would that make it okay to take its life?
I agree in the rhetorical answer: of course not. As pointed out, the nature of
the life may be what's at issue. [There are people in such situations and they
live rather awful lives. For example, since their bodies don't indicate how
they are configured while asleep they don't turn properly and suffer distortions
of physical sorts.] I wasn't suggesting a criterion for making some such
judgment--rather, I hoped to raise the question of how to go about it. In
whatever discussion followed would we find that ecofeminism required some kind
of moral perspective? This is a different way of getting at the question
already asked in a couple of other ways: What is ecofeminism?
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 3 16:11:25 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 3 16:11:25 1994
Received: from bock.ucs.ualberta.ca (bock.ucs.ualberta.ca [129.128.5.214]) by
csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id QAA25881 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 3 Oct 1994 16:11:24 -0600
Received: from colossusip.geog.ualberta by bock.ucs.ualberta.ca with SMTP
(8.6.5/UA2.0.0.93Dec20) id QAA02381
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 3 Oct 1994 16:13:17 -0600
Received: from COLOSSUS/MAILQUEUE by colossusip.geog.ualberta (Mercury 1.11);
Mon, 3 Oct 94 16:18:56 -0600
Received: from MAILQUEUE by COLOSSUS (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 3 Oct 94 16:18:41 -0600
From: "LALONDE ROXANNE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Dept. of Geography, Univ. of Alta.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 16:18:34 MDT
Subject: Tough questions about carrots
Priority: normal
X-mailer: PMail v3.0 (R1a)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In skimming the "carrot" debate, I came across these questions:
What value would ecofeminism
> have if it had no view of what is good in the topics that interest it? Without
> such a concern would it be anything different from any other interest group? Is
> ecofeminism really no different in logical or moral structure than any other
> trade group [instead of agrifarmers the constituency is females?]. I see a kind
> of allegiance to a sort of "land ethic" in some of the discussion, but it should
> be obvious that that view is in no sense "feminist."
In terms of focussing on the ecofeminist aspects of the inherent
value of living things, I think there is still a lot more reflection
to be done. Are the ideas that contributors to the debate have been
sharing actually ecofeminist? Or are they what we think might be
ecofeminist because we subscribe to certain ecofeminist beliefs, but
in actual fact, our thoughts on this particular subject are highly
subjective gut reactions to something that is pretty complex?
I offer the following as a superficial presentation of a concept
of inherent value based on a holistic understanding of creation as
the physical manifestation of spiritual qualities that originate in a
supreme, creative force or power that is ultimately the origin of
everything that exists. (Sorry, didn't mean for that sentence to get
out of control.) Anyway, one way of looking at the world is as a
hierarchical (not in the dominating patriarchal sense, give me a
chance to explain) ordering of different elements in creation from
the most essential but least physically complex (i.e., the basic
elements: water, air, etc. that are comprised of minerals and such)
through bacteria and other microscopic organisms through the various
levels of plantlife through animals and finally culminating at this
stage of evolution in human beings. The essential connection among
all these levels is spiritual, but it is also physical because the
higher you get up the "pyramid" as some have referred to it, the more
vulnerable you are to changes in the dynamics of the lower levels.
Although many of you might find the following comment highly
anthropocentric, if you think about it really deeply and without
the blinders that politicization can put on these subjects and
perhaps remembering from my previous comments that I would never
accept something on merely superficial terms, you might find
something see what I'm getting at. If one looks at life as a
balance between physical and spiritual, then the assimilation of
matter into higher levels of creation could be perceived as a way for
all beings in creation to achieve their ultimate purpose. If
humanity's prime responsibility is to recognize and love our Creator,
then the respect and reverence for the Creation must be a prime
motivation in our lives. Maintaining that orientation in such
necessary activities as the consumption of water, the use of natural
resources to create shelters for our bodies both as homes and as
clothing, the ingestion of plants and animals to nourish our bodies
are all part of our worship of the Creator. The aboriginal approach
to nature is full of insights into this concept of a relationship
between humans and the rest of nature and I believe that some
ecofeminism also has insights.
If anyone is interested in some bibliographic sources on these
subjects, feel free to contact me.
Roxanne
> Ken W. Gatzke, Philosophy
> Southern Connecticut State University
> New Haven, CT 06515
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 3 17:47:48 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 3 17:47:47 1994
Received: from udavxb (udavxb.oca.udayton.edu [131.238.1.11]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id RAA27621 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 3 Oct
1994 17:47:39 -0600
Received: from checkov.hm.udayton.edu by udavxb.oca.udayton.edu (PMDF V4.2-10
#2481) id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon,
3 Oct 1994 19:31:20 EDT
Received: from HM/MAILQUEUE by checkov.hm.udayton.edu (Mercury 1.11); Mon,
3 Oct 94 19:27:17 GMT-5
Received: from MAILQUEUE by HM (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 3 Oct 94 19:26:55 GMT-5
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 1994 19:26:54 -0500 (EST)
From: "Brian A. Luke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ECOFEM digest 33
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Dayton
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
>
> > But apparently there is still,
> >for certain patriarchal activities (like the exploitation of animals)
> >an inclination by many feminists to preserve the power and protection
> >from scrutiny that comes from labelling oppressive behavior "personal
> >choice." In my opinion, buying meat is no more a personal choice
> >than beating one's wife, raping one's children, or hiring a
> >prostitute.
>
>
> Isn't this the same argument used by anti-choice activists in the
> abortion debate?
I suppose it would be if you could show that cows, pigs and chickens
grow inside women's bodies, or that abortion is an oppressive,
patriarchal activity.
Brian
