Still sounds like day one in an intro ethics course and I suggest goes some
distance toward explaining the lack of impact of "environmentalist" views [cf.
news accounts yesterday of decline in environmental organizations, money, etc.].
As long as all one has is a set of facts [there are food chains, people eat this
or that because they feel this or that way, red meat causes this or that in
one's arteries, and so forth] one has no reason for choosing this way or that
for approaching the world. Why SHOULD one join in a food chain [or whatever
your favorite fact is]? Those who are proposing these things don't see the
value/ethical schemes they are assuming and so those views are weak and are
perceived by the enemies of nature as so. The enemies think their "facts" are
just as good as your "facts" [and a lot more fun]. That most of the people
subscribing to ecofem agree on the problems there are would then just be a happy
accident. Those who disagree and aren't in the discussion are unified by clear
[and I think clearly wrong] values--that's why things are so hard to change.
I'll wager most of us started out like them and changed because we found those
standard value schemes indefensible. One needs to answer their first and obvious
question: Why SHOULD I? That takes moral argument.
Prof. Gadfly
