Wed 7 Mar, 2012 01:40 am
Obviously! Ethics in general is about relations between people, and between societies. Some may call the latter politics. Our relationship to the environment and nature is on a different scale. In the first instance it is between society as a whole and chaotic extinction. If this world does not preserve a minimal viable environment there will be nothing to be moral about. What this signifies is that all and any society, that has the wit to nurture nature, will also nurture a general concept of care. It might be said that any society which hopes to survive must have at least a mechanical concept of welfare.
Within society, in relation to absolute end-values. The environment stands apart in some degree such that attitudes to it might be at variance with the end-values as they relate to human beings.
A Tyranny does not value the individual as other than a cog in the machine, and so the environment and nature would be even more a mere tool. There might be some odd philosophy that worships creatures above human beings, the vagaries of 'religion' are well known.
For the Anarchist society, if it is consistent and extends the same principle to nature. There would probably be little concern for farm animals, or their 'rights.' they being the property of autonomous families. For the natural world proper, a concept of autonomy might well be extended to its denizens. Providing a right for nature to exist sustainably within its proper reserves.
Altruist society, not narrowly limited to human concern, would extend value to all creatures within the limits of mutual welfare. And according to their level on the tree of life towards 'human consciousness'. A malignant virus being a minimal life form and a present danger to humanity, would have short shrift. Farm animals would be accorded 'rights' presenting an almost insuperable problem in defining the level of those rights, such that many people would opt out and become vegetarians.
You misunderstand ethic completely... Primarily, ethics is like ethnic and springs from a similar linguistic root... A person is ethical as much as he characterizes the behavior of his people... A Jew killing an Arab, and an Arab killing a Jews can both be ethical... Blood thicker than water is an ethical statement... But to the extent that we con conceive of ourselves as human, and can consider the whole earth as the commonwealth of humanity; we can see that those who burn through our resources only because they can are the enemy of humanity and not deserving of ethical consideration... We must think long term... Where is the fire??? They start the fires to justify their use of water, but also to jsutify their taking of power... The whole of our economy has made a mockery of ethics and ethical relationships... It is not the beginning of ethics, but is only made possible because ethics protects the unethical with the ethical...It will never be ethical to take power and resources from people because it is possible, when to continue life through many generations, the resources we waste will be needed and impossible to find... One thing is true of all ethical communities is their care for their young and their old, and their sense of the life they received and passed on to future generations... We have no such sense, and so cannot be considered as ethical...
Hi today i read this topic it's really nice and informative and i would like to say that every society need best and good fresh environment for their health and their children's health because it's naturally think that if we have good environment and than we get fresh and healthy indoor environment....