Hello!
My name is Jon. I'm a philosophy major concentrating in law, ethics, and society. I look forward to many lively discussion threads.
Today in class, it struck me that both the action biocentrists advocate, and the action strict (informed) utilitarians advocate seem quite similar: we have to do more to prevent the destruction of the planet. So the opposing moral theories here call for the same response in practice. The same can't be said for our lifeboat scenario if J.S. Mill and Kant were in our counsel ("eat Sebastian to save us all", and "don't eat Sebastian, he is infinitely valuable!", respectively). But it seems for the sake of advancing the conservational agenda in the political arena, the most effective arguments for environmentalism are going to be based on the planet's direct and indirect instrumental value to us. Regardless of whether we ought to view our planet and its life systems as inherently valuable, its stability is a moral obligation to our own species -- on the most massive scale conceivable, really -- because we are helplessly dependent on its good health.
“What's the use of a fine house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?”--Thoreau
No comments:
Post a Comment