Seeing one's name in an ecofem message is certainly a good catalyst
to get back into the debate and there have been a few comments lately
that I have wanted to comment on, so here goes:
In response to my response to something Prof. Gadfly wrote along
the lines of "do unto others...", he wrote:
> I'd only say that in my
> intro ethics course I usually point out that it is possible to give an egoist,
> cultural relativist, utilitarian [and other teleological], deontological, and
> other readings of the Golden Rule [including that those with the gold tend to
> rule!]. My suggestion was to counter the egoism that lies behind most
> anti-ecological views by starting the discussion with the ego in question. If
> one can then show one cannot block the moral consideration of non-humans based
> on the principles the dissenter wants to apply to her or himself, one can get
> much farther with a pro-eco view...
I cannot disagree with "starting the discussion with the ego in
question." The point I was trying to make (and obviously not very
effectively) is that the source of much of what is included in
arguments that center around morality is religious teachings in one
form or another. I would go so far as to say that the "do unto
others" ethic holds true on every level, in every aspect of human
existence and that dissecting the ethic without maintaining some
attachment to basic common sense can result in philosophical
speculations that really don't get us anywhere. I think it's really
good for this group to have a practicing professional philosopher in
our midst to remind us of when we are making illogical leaps. I also
feel that we need to remain focused on the "real" world. I don't
think any of us on here will disagree that a "pro-eco view" is what
is needed. Let's just make sure that humans aren't excluded from it.
Which brings me to "anthropocentrism." Someone has already
presented the distinction between thinking from a human point of view
and putting humans first on a priority scale. It is impossible for us
not to think as humans. That's a fact. However, it is necessary that
we think beyond our own personal or even species interests (in an
exclusive sense) and adopt a much longer time-scale for our realm of
concern if we are going to get past the problems that face humanity
and our home today. The challenge is to educate those who think that
a more selfish, short-term view is the desirable modus operandi. Many
people can't get past the environment-economy dichotomy and don't see
how we can save the environment without suffering financially. There
is a wealth of evidence that environmental _and_ economic
sustainability are possible. We just have to shift our focus a bit
(and in some cases a lot.)
Finally, the recent comments that cite biblical passages as
endorsements for meat eating, etc. This debate began in contemporary
times with a paper by Lynn White, Jr that essentially placed the
responsibility for Western destruction of the environment firmly in
the hands of the Judeo-Christian tradition, citing Ch. 1 of Genesis
as the first word. Rene Dubos countered that argument with the thesis
that inspiration could also be drawn from the Bible in Ch. 2 of
Genesis that "sustainable" management of Earth's resources was also
endorsed. The debate raged and the field of environmental ethics took
off from there. Interpretation of any sacred scripture is a very
complex process. One must always keep in mind the cultural and
historical context of the document itself (and its source) and
remember that religion has evolved through time. However, the
essential religious "truths" have not. Those that endure do so
because they make sense in practical terms and in spiritual terms.
There is no reason that I can see (yet? Maybe someone wants to try to
convince me) for rejecting religion in general or the teachings that
are derived from religions simply because some religious practices
have turned out to be destructive, exploitative, oppressive, etc. One
runs the risk then of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Human
beings are fallible. (I would reinforce the reminder that we remain
humble.) However, the Creator is not.
Sorry this took so long.
Roxanne
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 13 12:23:58 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 13 12:23:57 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 MAA10403 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 13 Oct 1994 12:23:55 -0600
Received: from colossusip.geog.ualberta by bock.ucs.ualberta.ca with SMTP
(8.6.5/UA2.0.0.93Dec20) id MAA15211
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 13 Oct 1994 12:26:12 -0600
Received: from COLOSSUS/MAILQUEUE by colossusip.geog.ualberta (Mercury 1.11);
Thu, 13 Oct 94 12:31:34 -0600
Received: from MAILQUEUE by COLOSSUS (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 13 Oct 94 12:31:15 -0600
From: "LALONDE ROXANNE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Dept. of Geography, Univ. of Alta.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 12:31:11 MDT
Subject: Re: humans, others
Priority: normal
X-mailer: PMail v3.0 (R1a)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Brian related this story:
>
> I'll give one personal example. When I was interviewing for a job a
> few years ago, a group of professors took me out to dinner. One of
> the professors asked if HIS eating meat at the meal would bother me.
> He expressed very clearly to me that if it bothered me at all, he
> would order vegetarian. I was floored by this, since at no time
> before in my life had someone been that considerate of how I might
> feel by their eating meat in front of me. This incident clarified to
>
How extraordinarily considerate of that professor. Wouldn't it be
nice if we were all so thoughtful of other people's feelings and
sensibilities all the time!
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 13 19:03:26 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 13 19:03:26 1994
Received: from UKCC.uky.edu (ukcc.uky.edu [128.163.1.5]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id TAA21525 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 13 Oct
1994 19:03:25 -0600
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from UKCC.UKY.EDU by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 5372; Thu, 13 Oct 94 21:05:20 EDT
Received: from ukcc.uky.edu (NJE origin NALAN01@UKCC) by UKCC.UKY.EDU (LMail
V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0621; Thu, 13 Oct 1994 21:05:20 -0400
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 20:54:11 EDT
From: Natalie Alane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Non-______ Conferences
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes. Definitely ban meat from feminist conferences. Also, excellent idea
about the alcohol as well. Why put others under undue pressure to join in.
Plus, it should go without saying that cigarettes and other smokable materials
should not be allowed. Not to mention all that sugar-loaded, fat-filled
reception fare such as cookies, cake and punch. After all, shouldn't we care
more about our bodies and not supporting industries who over-process and over-
additive our food? That brings me to my next idea, why don't all conference
attenders meet at 5:00 am to take a few laps around the hotel block. That
would serve as a bonding agent as well as benefit our physical beings. The
only problem is that when you're running, you can't help but inhale carbon
monoxide at an accelerated pace from the passing automobiles. Well, at least
it won't be *our* automobiles! You weren't planning to /drive/ to the confer-
ence, were you??!? Do you realize how much Earth-destruction took place to
make that car? And how detrimental it is to keep it running? And if we drove,
it would certainly discourage well-meaning resisters from continuing to ride
their bikes. They would certainly run out and buy a car since we are doing it.
And what about this hotel, anyway? I wonder what the landscape was like before
a bunch of capitalistic, profit-mongering ogres tore it down. I make a motion
that all future conferences be held in woods and everyone camps out. (This is
actually done and what fun it is!) By using the conference facilities we are
only supporting the very thing we are "conferring" about. . . . . . . . . . .
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 13 21:10:27 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 13 21:10:26 1994
Received: from ono.lincoln.ac.nz (ono.lincoln.ac.nz [138.75.10.8]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id VAA23769 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 13
Oct 1994 21:10:18 -0600
Received: from kea.lincoln.ac.nz by ono.lincoln.ac.nz (PMDF V4.3-10 #7492)
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 14 Oct 1994 15:53:25 +1300
Received: from KEA/MERCURYQ by kea.lincoln.ac.nz (Mercury 1.13); Fri,
14 Oct 94 15:55:14 +1300
Received: from MERCURYQ by KEA (Mercury 1.13); Fri, 14 Oct 94 15:54:45 +1300
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 15:54:36 +1200
From: "STEFANIE S. RIXECKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Posting problem/forwarded message
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Lincoln University
X-Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.1 (R1a)
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
The mailer had a hard time sending this to the list, so I'm
forwarding it now. Cheers, Stefanie
On Tue, 11 Oct 1994, James Roper wrote:
> Hi Faith,
>
> Just a suggestion for those allergy-prone would-be vegetarians. Dairy
> products cause any problems?
Yes, I am allergic to dairy and eggs.
>Are grains the allergy problem and if so,
> what plant families do those grains belong to? There are many
> alternatives to any specific grain.
I'm allergic to wheat and corn and rye; I make do with rice, quinoa and,
occasionally spelt. Nothing else works.
> And, unfortunately, we seem to
think > we need a lot more protein than we (especially post-pubescent) need.
I find that I'm fine with the amount of protein recommended by "Diet for
a Small Planet" and "Eat More and Weigh Less" **IF I'M LIVING A
RELATIVELY STRESS-FREE EXISTENCE. Once I'm stuck in the daily work
treadmill, or experiencing other stress, my protein needs shoot up.
> if you would prefer not to kill animals, then what about dairy and eggs?
See above. Of COURSE I would prefer to be nourished by the gifts of the
cow and the chicken, rather than with their bodies.
> Supplemented with non-allergic fruit and vegetables?
BTW, I'm allergic to all nightshades (including potatoes), most starchy
veggies (alas, including eggplant), onions and garlic. Plus a few fruits.
> I find an oxymoron
> with "humane" and then "eating." Woudl anybody call us humane if we
> sedated people first, then killed them, then ate them? Or would we say
> that we were just MORE humane than if we just outright killed, cooked and
> ate without concern for the pain?
I think you're struggling with two different things here. We have to eat.
So do the other mobile species. So do plants, for that matter. I think
the issue has more to do with how we approach and treat those who will be
a meal for us, **PLANT OR ANIMAL** becaues, as noted in other discussions,
plants have feelings, too. Where and how do you draw the line?
> I guess I think humane means to live> and let live.
I agree, and I believe that this includes you living and letting me live
in the manner I find healthiest. Don't assume that I haven't worried,
studied and thought about this as you have. I think you saw above that I
have researched this thoroughly; my decisions about how I eat and how I
treat what I will eat are my own. I respect your lifestyle; I ask that
you respect mine as well, and start with the assumption that I HAVE
thought about the alternatives.
> About morals and nature. Morals are a human invention. Enough said,
> except I'll say a little bit more. That means our morals are
> disconnected from evolution.
I largely agree with this ... except I would refocus it a bit. Our
morals are disconnected from our environment ... the earth, plants,
animals, cycles and seasons. So we do not see the consequences of our
disconnected acts, and thus (so far) largely fail to adjust our behavior
when it is not in our best interest.
> So, the consepquences fo evolutin do not > inform us of how to make moral
decisions.
See above.
> why, then we rephrase our questions and our answers that we will accept,
> and we start on the road to solving some problems.
Excellent point, James Roper. What if, instead of "Doesn't this bimbo
know anything about diet?" you had asked: "I wonder what led this woman
to make those decisions? I think I'll ask her."
In my case, anyway, that kind of question would have elicited a
friendlier response, and I wouldn't have had to calm down before I said ...
"Say, James J., now that you know something about my allergy pattern, do
you have any other suggestions? I'd appreciate hearing them ... why
don'cha reply by email?"
Thanks for your input ... and I AM interestd in your email suggestions.
Faith
