I'd add that if the psycho-behavioural thesis is true, then it is important in two ways: (1) it provides a rationale for both the diagnosis and solution of environmental problems, and (2) it gives practical justification to the discipline of environmental ethics itself (conceived as the mission to secure converts to the evaluative thesis of non-anthropocentrism). I'm fairly sure most of what currently passes as ethical-moral discourse needs to change in this direction. Any existing converts here?
On Monday, 1 December 2014 15:10:09 UTC, archytas wrote: > > Environmental ethics is the discipline in philosophy that studies the > moral relationship of human beings to, and also the value and moral status > of, the environment and its nonhuman contents. This involves (1) the > challenge of environmental ethics to the anthropocentrism (i.e., > human-centeredness) embedded in traditional western ethical thinking; ((2) > the connection of deep ecology, feminist environmental ethics, and social > ecology to politics; (3) the attempt to apply traditional ethical theories, > including consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics, to support > contemporary environmental concerns; and (4) the focus of environmental > literature on wilderness. > > Our current de facto religious control fraud (economics) is broadly > anti-green - Allan's 'golden calf'. It is resistant to Andrew's 'time walk > history' and Molly up a tree being at one with nature other than as a > 'sweet story' and communicative rationality generally, using pseudo-science > systems to explain everything and direct what we can do. I now vote Green > as my other 'choices' are neo-liberal or fascist. Gabby can perhaps vote > that way with more direct hope. > > Various books I've read recently suggest 'being green' is a morality > changer. I've long thought science such, though not in the crude > positivist sense most of the anti-science people use as a straw man. > > Anthropocentrism often recognizes some non-intrinsic wrongness of > anthropogenic (i.e. human-caused) environmental devastation. Such > destruction might damage the well-being of human beings now and in the > future, since our well-being is essentially dependent on a sustainable > environment. We have been aware of the population and environmental crisis > since the 1960's. Much religion, perhaps especially the > Judeo-Christian idea that humans are created in the image of the > transcendent supernatural God, who is radically separate from nature, also > by extension radically separates humans themselves from nature. This > ideology further opened the way for untrammelled exploitation of nature. > Modern Western science itself, White argues, was “cast in the matrix of > Christian theology” so that it too inherited the “orthodox Christian > arrogance toward nature” (White 1967, 1207). Clearly, without technology > and science, the environmental extremes to which we are now exposed would > probably not be realized. White's thesis, however, is that given the modern > form of science and technology, Judeo-Christianity itself provides the > original deep-seated drive to unlimited exploitation of nature. > Nevertheless, White argued that some minority traditions within > Christianity (e.g., the views of St. Francis) might provide an antidote to > the “arrogance” of a mainstream tradition steeped in anthropocentrism > ( White, L., 1967. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”, > Science, 155:1203-1207). > > The arguments are old, though one rarely sees them in insanestream media. > Two keys points are (1) the evaluative thesis (of non-anthropocentrism) is > the claim that natural nonhuman things have intrinsic value, i.e., value in > their own right independent of any use they have for others, and (2) the > psycho-behavioural thesis (of non-anthropocentrism) is the claim that > people who believe in the evaluative thesis of non-anthropocentrism are > more likely to behave environmentally (i.e., behave in beneficial ways, or > at least not in harmful ways, towards the environment) than those who do > not. > > Our 'deep ideologies' don't seem to be helping much. Ferguson and > Tottenham rioted on the killings of minor black criminals by police, but we > don't seem to be able to get 'up in arms' against burning the planet or > wars that have killed millions of innocents and continue to do so. Looking > at us from 40 million light-years away, a decent alien society might be > discussing whether they have any ethical imperative to help us as distant > strangers, perhaps wondering if delivering some practical green energy > alternatives could help us move from our crude libidinal condition of > scarcity wars and trinket consumption. > > The economists don't want to discuss any deep ideology at all. The > politicians seem able to whip it up and it hardly resembles 'deep green' > when they do. Is our religious talk just talk above deeper crude ideology > of a selfish, self-centred libidinal-tribal condition? So what are your > views, my fellow carbon-footprints? > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
