|> issues, and only humans are moral agents (at least until other animals or
|> plants tell us about their morality in no uncertain terms).
|
|This is a bit of a side issue, but don't you think dogs, horses,
|etc., are moral agents, to the extent that they take an area of
|responsibility and make it theirs (e.g., guide dogs for the blind,
|police dogs, ...)? Vicki Hearne writes about this rather deeply.
Almost by definition, since we classify these things as moral acts.
However, I am really only referring to the rational we as humans use to
derive our sense of morality. As you say above, we would also call murder
in chimpanzees a moral problem. Yet they do it without our understanding
why. Which is why what your examples show are not very informative. We
can use them as analogies for how we should behave, but we still ahve to
make that analogy (they won't do it for us).
|What about marine animals going out of their way to rescue people
|(dolphins, turtles, seals, etc.)? Aren't those examples of moral
|agency (just as much as one of us humans running into a burning
|building to pull out kids, cats, etc.)?
By definition, again, but since we have no understaning of their motives,
or their rationale, we don't really know what to make of it. But henm,
heck, we really don't know why people do it either! :-)
Jim
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Feb 5 11:05:35 MST 1995
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: views from nature
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 13:10:53 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "Jonathan M
Poppele" at Feb 4, 95 04:19:34 pm
|> For what it's worth, I am an ecologist, and I walk around in the woods a
|> lot studying nature.
|
|For what it's worth, I am an ecologist also. This is not, however, how
|you learn about these things.
You left out the "IMHO" above. It is certainly one of the many ways that
these things can be learned.
|> Rocks die? Rocks prefer respect to life? Gee, gonna have to think on
|> that one.
|
|Read "Grandfather" by Tom Brown Jr. before you do. You may well disagree,
|but you will at least be thinking about it from a more informed perspective.
I have read Tom Brown. He is certainly not the definitive word on these
things.
|> Well, what are they? Cruelty free and respectful ways to kill, I mean.
|
|Never having had to kill an animal to survive, I could not tell you first
|hand, and would not trust myself to relay another persons account
|properly. I would suggest another Tom Brown book, "The Search."
|I think LaChapelle also has some views on this in "Sacred Land..."
|> I've never discussed respect and cruelty with the birds and
|> hte bees,
|
|Perhaps you should.
You know, I try taling to them, but there are no direct links from our
language to theirs. I often think I know what they say, but then that
comes from inside my head, not inside theirs.
|> but I sure have watched animals treat each other with cruelty
|> and disrespect, causing pain, mutilation, and sometimes they don't even
|> have enough respect to kill the maimed animal!
|
|Wait a moment, I thought you said that life was paramount. Now you are
|upset at an animal who may agree with you? Besides, I thought you said
|that these were human ideas. Is it not inappropriate to evaluate nature
|in these terms?
If you remember correcly, this was in reply to something you said. It
is referential to that, not a statement of my opinions.
|> issues, and only humans are moral agents (at least until other animals or
|> plants tell us about their morality in no uncertain terms).
|
|Ah!! So what your saying is we are not animals. We are "above" that. We
|and we alone have the sacred ability to be moral.
No, of course that is not what I am saying. We ahve a very complex
language and ability to store ideas (books) and interact in a whole
variety of ways that other animals do not have. Also, we have the
ability to cause huge transformations of the earth. These thigns
distiguish us from other animals.
|Call it what you will, this view will always be the arrogance of humanism
|to me.
Has nothing to do with arrogance. It is merely the recognition of
differences when differences occur.
|Which views? Nature "red in tooth and claw?" If what you mean is your
Don't you remember, that was a quote from Tennyson. I am surprised that
you haven't come across that as an ecologist, it's in all the literature
of natural selection... :-)
|> My morality comes from my wish to keep and cherish a beautiful nature
|> all over the world.
|
|What exactly do you mean by this? You say that you dislike much of what
|you see in nature, enough so to avoid using it as an example (which is
Whoa! Don't misunderstand. There is nothing in nature that I dislike.
|morality is based on preserving it. All of it? Hmmm. It has often been
|suggested that the world as a whole would be better off without people,
|at least the "beautiful nature" would be. Seems to me it would be logical
|of you to not be morally object to infanticide, war, the holocost and so
|on. This is not meant mockingly, there are misanthropes who have moral
|codes that are just so, based on the same principle you just outlined.
Are you deliberately misreading my comments? For what you just said, I
also said was the reasons why we cannot use nature as a moral example,
because then we can justfiy anything we want (as people have done).
|"cruelty" and "respect" were human constructs. I would say that is where
|we differ. The concepts you use may well be human constructs. The
|concepts I try (key word) to use are ones I have learned from nature, not
|ones I have imposed on it.
Words are human constructs. It seems to me that you are confusing
"motive" with "result" Let me explain. I am quite concerned about the
destruction of the world. My reasons are because I have always been
fascinated by nature, and have studied it since very young. In that
study, and in experienceing nature where I have, I have been led to a
moral stance. I got that stance, not because I saw animals behaving very
morally just. So, my "motive" for my morals comes to a large extent from
my experiences with nature, but my morals themselves come from thought
about the way people should be (since I am quite content with the way
OTHER animals are) if we want to preserve nature as nature. The
"resultant" morals come from the human interactions, the reading, the
thinking, the discussing, etc. while the "motive" to have those morals
came from a love of nature.
Are you sure you are not imposing your beliefs upon nature? And how can
you know that?
Jim
