I agree with Peter Singer's and Jeremy Bentham's POV advocating for every being's interest to be given equal consideration as the like interests of any other being. But with equality a moral idea born of human-created criteria which imposes an assigned value to life forms, I fear it is inadequate for the task. Sylvan's idea of the need for a new Environmental Ethic advances this POV more palatably into the philosophical and public spheres for human consideration.
Bentham offers the capacity for suffering and/or enjoyment as the vital characteristics that give a being the right to equal consideration. I remain troubled by the fact that many species will be omitted from the right for equal consideration. The value judgment for consideration is made by humans, who base a species' capacity for suffering and/or enjoyment on their anthropocentric technological/scientific beliefs. Because humankind lacks the capacity to communicate adequately with other species, many are deemed unworthy of moral consideration and viewed as insentient. Or abstractly determined to be lower on the hierarchal scale measuring species' rights for moral consideration.
In particular, I can find no logical ethic for determining the value of life forms in any hierarchal form. Life on planet earth exists in an intricately woven, interdependent web, not in a vacuum.
Humankind remains vastly ignorant of the purpose and true nature of many species. The fig wasp is the only pollinator of fig trees. There are many known examples of symbiotic dependency in nature. The ripple effect is misunderstood, unacknowledged, or disdained by the powers that be. Considering any specie superior to any other is a dangerous road to travel.
Humankind assigns value in relation to purpose, and purpose in relation to existence. If there is a purpose to the existence of this planet's life forms as an interdependent collective, then creating a hierarchy of value for species, and acting on its validity, may lead to the end of existence of humanity and all earth's life forms.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
One problem with the equal consideration of all species is that it may produce an undecidable (hence empty) ethics. Should I slap away the mosquito or risk my own health? Should I wash my hands or save the species who reside there? Should I save Uncle Charlie or the cancer growing inside him? These questions are answerable only if we assign greater (moral) value to one or the other.
Perhaps. I believe your point holds trues for today's modern cultures. I think if we understood the true nature of interspecies relationships and the necessary composition and numbers required to maintain a natural planetary equilibrium, we would act/react intuitively/instinctively as part of this balance. I believe that there is a predetermined natural rhythm for all life forms independently and collectively. I think the answer may lie in our harmonizing in concert with nature, rather than projecting the
discordant cadence accompanying human chauvinism and utilitarianism.
Eden has been defiled.
I do not know how we can achieve a natural harmonious state in Earth's present state, but I believe it must be possible.
Post a Comment