🚀 go-pugleaf

Jonathan Haskett wrote:

>Fairness and justice are strictly human concepts, which can have meaning
>*only* in a human social context. To the extant that wilderness and other
>species exist outside the human context, these concepts do not apply to
>them. Just as it is impossible for other species which exist outside the
>human context to have rights.

He then went on to cite instances of interspecific competition between
non-human species as examples of how the natural world has no concern
for justice.  Tormod Burkey posted a more than credible repudiation of
the anthropocentric arrogance I originally wrote of.  We don't know whether
or not bears have a sense of fair play.  The answer to that question may or
may not be of any importance, but we should not automatically assume that the
question is irrelevent.

Fairness and justice ARE human concepts -- that much we are all agreed on.
That is not the same thing as saying that the beneficiaries of these
intellectual constructs can ONLY be human.  We can, and do, extend rights
all the time.  Every time we make an extension of rights, it is always a
ceding of power by those in power -- and continues only so long as it is their
pleasure to do so.  In a hypothetical civil rights extension between two
groups, Majority A and Minority B, rights won by (or granted to) Minority B are
held at the pleasure of Majority A until such a time that enough concessions
have been made to balance the power.  Then it is no longer clear who is
yielding what to whom -- but it is clearly still a case of concessions being
made.

As far as non-humans are concerned, we have precedent.  We already recognize
corporate "rights".  Corporations are clearly non-sentient entities.  It is not
therefore inconceivable that we might grant an extension of "rights" to various
"classes" of animals, scenic vistas, or other cohorts of the natural realm.

[I truly hope that people find this both intellectually intriguing and amusing
at the same time.  I do.]


Mark VanderMeulen later railed against the regrettable broadside against
religion and its relationship to scientist.  In a valuable reminder, he notes
that we who wish to preserve are going to need the help of the masses -- i.e.
everyone, mainly non-degreed just plain folk.  He suggests that religious
(specifically Judeo-Christian) respect for "God's creation" might be an
important vehicle for enlisting this aid.

While I agree that it might be, I personally would rather not see it used as
a primary argument.  My reason is thus: religion is even less agreed upon
than science.  And, the J-C ethic is not universal.  Reliance on it is just as
likely to alienate as not.

I would prefer a rational, ethical formulation, probably based on "rights"
-- at least based on respect for the natural world.  Such a formulation
could then be fitted into a person's individual belief structure -- whether
J-C "stewardship" or Bhuddist "dharma".

Haskett was right in one thing -- we have to remember that WE are the ones
who believe in, and define, "rights".  This is an important caveat.  It does
not, however prevent us from moving forward a case for preservation.

I highly recommend Thomas Birch's paper "The Incarceration of Wildness".  I
apologize for not having a cite available at this time (I believe that it was
in the Spring 1991, Journal of Environmental Ethics).

Thanks for keeping it lively!


     Warren Rudman <<NOT the Senator>>      Internet: UR730C@gwuvm.gwu.edu
     835 4th Street NE                      Bitnet:   UR730C@gwuvm
     Washington, DC 20002
                                            Phone:    (h) 202/543-0324
     "...since the general or prevailing              (W) 202/898-3055
     opinion on any subject is rarely or
     ever the whole truth, it is only by
     the collision of adverse opinions
     that the remainder of the truth has    << John Stuart Mill,
     any chance of being supplied."            from "On Liberty"