Some commenters have wondered if my argument is really a side show. Most environmental groups oppose whaling and the killing of dolphins and other advanced mammals, so why am I trying to create a rift that isn't there in the first place? For two reasons:
1. The rift is there and it will only grow wider. I strongly urge everyone to read the article "Kill Willy" in The New Republic. Here is an excerpt:
You see, though whales are lovely, intelligent, even cute animals, effective global management of these giant creatures has restored some of their stocks. Yet environmentalists are still trying to protect all whales from commercial use, a campaign that undermines the entire animal conservation movement.
...
Why [should] a multinational organization, reflecting the views of just one group, claim for itself the right to deny other countries the freedom to kill their own animals, which are in plentiful supply?
There is a growing chorus of voices that believe environmentalism should exclusively focus on issues of sustainability and drop its historical stance against such key issues as whaling. Some of these voices are coming from environmentalists, and some from the outside.
2. Since most environmentalists and environmental organizations continue to campaign against the killing of whales, dolphins, and other advanced mammals -- even when these animals are not threatened with extinction -- what I have been trying to do is to explore the moral framework that supports such a position. The only way to do this through the lens of animal welfare, which has a long tradition in moral philosophy. Anything else is purely subjective or purely emotional, and carries no philosophical weight whatsoever.
Right now environmentalism is going through a paradigm shift, and the outcome is unclear. Either it will choose to become the voice of what is essentially an amoral sustainability, and drop all notions of animal welfare, or it will realize that its goal should be more than just the sustainability of biological resources.
The movement has always walked an unsteady path between these two views. What I am arguing for is a clear articulation of the latter course coupled with an explicit statement of principles that expresses them. Anything else in my view is either wishy-washy or uninspiring or both.
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 10:33 am
23 Sep 2006
Is Jason "creating a rift"? Unclear at present, but I think those who think he is are a greater problem than he is. Much more importantly, he is shining light on a matter of indecision and ambiguity among environmentalists that ought to be recognized as important. Or, better said, that is already recognized as extremely important by many environmentalists, and they seriously dislike the neglect of it shown by other environmentalists.
The curious issue of, Do you deserve to be called an environmentalist if you approve of the sustainable killing of whales?, is not to the point. Such biblicizing propheticizing puritanizing jihadicizing directions ought strongly to be discouraged.
Nevertheless, activists after the pattern of David Roberts, who dislike too much thought and reflexion, are to their shame rather reminiscent of the Allied leaders of World War II, who considered it necessary, for the sake of united action and progress, to ignore the plight of the Jews, and the existence of the Nazi system of railroad-supplied concentration camps.
It may be true that environmentalism is experiencing a "paradigm shift." It certainly is true that the internationally recognized concept of state sovereignty is experiencing such a shift. The New Republic's writer's concerns for state sovereignty, with a clear message that interventions by international organizations are unjust, are ethically obsolete.
"The movement has always walked an unsteady path": OK, but I think it would be better put that environmentalists have never definitively said what the value of animals is. What sorts of beings are animals? What is the nature of our relationship with them? How does what is good for animals relate to what is good for human beings? What happens to humanity, when a species goes extinct? What happens to humanity, when an individual animal dies as the result of human activity? Are those merely economic losses, with no moral effects at all?
I suspect it is not so much a matter of the movement's walking an unsteady path; it is really a matter of the movement's receiving participants with various, conflicting answers to such questions as these.
Jason is right to request that we examine our own attitudes on all this. Surely his intention is not in any way to impede environmental activism regarding such large issues as global warming and pollution and energy. It is hard to understand the resentment expressed in many of the messages he has received in this connexion.
Think what you like about what the lives of animals, and the feelings of animals, are worth to you; think what you like about killing them; think what you like about whether "sustainability" of a species justifies killing them for economic benefit to humans. I say, you are obliged at least to think about these things.
Jason apparently takes an important step forward. He seems to be saying that "sustainability" is no justification for the killing of animals. And, it is perhaps illogical for environmentalists to assign value to biodiversity, including the health of as many species as possible, when they are unwilling to assign value to the lives of individual animals.
I think there is indeed common enough an anthropocentric evaluation of biodiversity among environmentalists, which admits no ethical regard for the interests of individual animals, no matter how lovely or cute. I also think that, while such an attitude is to be deeply regretted, and while it shows disrespect to the tradition of such leaders as John Muir, Aldo Leopold and Rachel Carson, and while it disgracefully shows fealty to our civilization's older, religious, authoritarian emphases, nevertheless it is not reasonable to suggest that it is utterly indefensible, quite yet. Hopefully, though, very very soon.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
dwm376s Posted 12:04 pm
23 Sep 2006
In thinking about these questions, I can see how an individual might want to connect these two "separate" ideologies - Animal Rights and Environmentalism. However, I think the first questions we need to ask is "How do we define animal rights?" Similarly, "How do we define environmentalism?"
Once these definitions are agreed upon, then and only then can we begin to ask if "....goal should be more than just the sustainability of biological resources."
My biggest beef with connecting these two issues is that animal rights equals anti-hunting..
I am always confused at how the anti-whaling folks seem to make whaling seem like a major commercial enterprise. Which I am sure it does generate a surprising amount of $$$$$$$$$. However, isn't the root of whaling, a cultural root? If whaling was such a profitable and huge commercial venture more folks than the Norwegians and Japanese would be attempting it. These cultures still whale, because it's a part of them. It's embedded within them.
I think the animal rights folks among us, who also consider themselves environmentalists, need to remember where they came from and who got this thing started. It was hunters and outdoorsmen, like Leopold, Muir, and Teddy Roosevelt. Granted others like Rachel Carson, who aren't noted as being sport hunters also played big roles.
So instead of me attempting to explain the importance of this I will leave it the environmentalists:
Hunting "is not merely an acquired taste; the instinct that finds delight in the sight and pursuit of game is bred into the very fiber of this race (man). We are dealing, therefore, with something that lies very deep. Some can live without opportunity for this exercise and control of the hunting instinct, just as I suppose some can live without work, play, love, business, or other vital adventures. But in these days we regard such deprivations as unsocial. Opportunity for exercise of all the normal instincts has come to be regarded more and more as an inalienable right."
-Aldo Leopold
"The hunt is the bicep of conservation . . . From hunting comes a supreme lesson for environmental conservation: self-interest extends to what we identify with, and we identify with whatever we are emotionally bonded . . . Let me put it this way. Put a 12-year-old boy in a duck blind with a shotgun in his hands and there is a fair possibility that he will grow up to join Ducks Unlimited and fiercely protect wetlands . . . the fact is that hunters were the original environmental conservationists, and they still lead in that field . . . Aldo Leopold's life history is a model for understanding how hunting develops moral responsibility to nature."
-Randal J. Eaton, Ph.D.
"Hunting is not simple. It is the only absolute rediscovery mechanism available to human beings; the mind-body fusion of all meditative, spiritual experiences is derived form its pasturage...The hunt is a universe of emotion that overwhelms, scatters all notions of other preoccupations and delivers the persona complete. Hunting is a love affair; turbulent, glaring, and all possessing...Hunting is an immersion; a drowning in connectedness...Hunting knows why the senses were made! Hunting is a cataclysm of inward progress. We hunt for spiritual reserve...to understand the world (and for)... the knowledge of self."
-Shane Mahoney
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:28 pm
23 Sep 2006
Two quibbles:
First, Jason has been very careful, explicitly so from time to time, not to use the expression "animal rights" as the term for the kind of moral concern he is interested in. He seems generally to prefer "animal welfare."
(It is curious that while I am comfortable referring to animal rights, and he apparently is not, yet my own style is to be less demanding than he.)
Secondly, a people's "culture" is not written in stone, by any means; and their culture-based conduct is neither inevitable nor irreformable. The "culture" of Mediterranean peoples included keeping slaves, and worshiping a plurality of supernatural beings, for many long centuries. And yet they have grown out of those cultural practices. The "culture" of Mesoamerican peoples included sacrificing prisoners on the altars of gods, and eating their flesh. Whatever else the conquistadores are to be blamed for, it is hard not to agree they were right to interrupt so frightful a cultural practice.
On a more central point of yours: I do not believe that support for animal rights automatically involves opposition to hunting. But the context of the act of hunting, including the attitude and intention of the hunter, counts for a great deal. And when each act is so examined, it seems difficult to justify more than a very few kinds of hunting as we see it practiced today.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:44 pm
23 Sep 2006
I won't pretend to understand this excerpt from your characteristically windy treatise, Caniscandida, but the cloud of implication is rather malodorous.
www.grist.org
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:25 pm
23 Sep 2006
Interestingly, I can understand Jason's frustration. Part of the problem seems to me, not only the ethical issues, but the reluctance of people to "give up" traditions such as whaling and eating animals.
(I am not against hunting under many circumstances, I despise sports and trophy hunting, but feel that perhaps they could be justified (Haven't seen an acceptable one yet!)).
Is this causing a rift? Nonsense. The rift is there, Jason is at best, exploring it (and while we rarely agree, I appreciate his honest attempts to do so).
To dwm376s, what weapons do you use? Under what circumstances and where do you hunt? Do you always kill what you hit? Do you eat it all?
(Frankly there are so-called "hunters" wandering around with 50 caliber guns drunk out of their minds blasting away at anything anywhere. They are not, and never really will, be concerned with the environment, they just want to use guns.)
So, while it is possible to criticize animal welfare folks, it is certainly possible to take aim at some segments among hunters (grin, hmm, just did that! Is my point clear?).
Given that Americans of all stripes show very little sign of ethical values, we should gladly engage in this kind of conversation.
Can we do it in such a way that we can listen to and hear each other without name calling?
So far, the evidence is mixed.
patrick
Permalink
Robert Delfs Posted 8:19 pm
23 Sep 2006
Actually, I would be the last person to dismiss your arguments about aligning environmentalism with the animal rights movement as irrelevant or some kind of a sideshow. I take this discussion very seriously.
Your recent restatement of your position in the parallel thread - when you wrote that someone who evinces support for biodiversity conservation but "then is perfectly comfortable with the types of slaughter [of whales, dolphins, seals, etc.] ... is not in my opinion an environmentalist" - does crystallize an important differences in our views.
For me, this statement betrays a conception of environmentalism as - not a movement - but rather a kind of church, whose doctrines are apparently to be defined by ... well, persons like you yourself, who claim superior insight into the truths and traditions of moral philosophy.
When you pronounce on who passes or fails the criteria of being a "real" environmentalist, you are asserting the right to excommunicate anyone whose views on animal welfare fail to meet your standards. Based on comments you've made, I think we can assume that the criteria for remaining an environmentalist in good standing under your dispensation would be demanding indeed. You have made it abundantly clear that the new inquisition would not limit itself to targeting only those who actually engage in acts of cruelty to animals. Even tacit support, or simply appearing to be "comfortable" with proscribed types of behavior would be sufficient grounds for expulsion from the fold.
I am disappointed that you believe an environmentalism that merely seeks to preserve endangered species, ecosystems and habitats (i.e., one that does not simultaneously embrace your own philosophy of animal welfare and rights) to be "wishy-washy or uninspiring or both", but there it is, I guess. Since I've never seen environmentalism as a moral crusade against evil, your dismissal of any environmentalism that "amorally" fails to stress the welfare of individual animals doesn't sting that hard.
Personally, I don't quite see the "paradigm shift" in environmentalism that you allege is underway. If any paradigmatic change is taking place, I suspect it is more about how complex ecosystems function at different orders of scale - or replacing the idea of a static `balance of nature' with a more dynamic and historical understanding of biogeographic and evolutionary change - than it is about the rights and welfare of any individual pigeons in the park.
For most of us - I speak for myself and at least some conservationists whose work I deeply respect - environmentalism is not a church. It doesn't need new doctrines, and it certainly doesn't need to be part of someone else's Crusade. It definitely doesn't need a self-appointed `Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith' to root out heresy and moral error.
CanisCandida,
I had enough trouble with Jason's bizarre anology about genocide vs slavery in the other thread, but your likening David Roberts' position to that of allied WWII leaders who ignored concentration camps and the plight of the Jews is, to me, truly offensive, and frightening. The moral absolutism evidenced in that statement represents, for me, precisely the dangers of injecdting into environmentalism neo-religious belief systems of any kind.
I don't mean to disparage Jason's [implicit?] belief in the sanctity of animal life, nor yours. I am saying those beliefs are not part of environmentalism, and that the claim that it is "illogical" for environmentalists to resist conversion to your (or any other) faith is utterly spurious.
I don't really mind if you happen to believe that a commercial fishing boat or a feed lot is the moral equivalent of Dachau, but I'm not particularly interested in hearing (or reading) you or anybody else talk about it - or indeed in any other form of association.
Regarding Jason's "important step forward", he did, by the way, accept that `sustainability' can be a justification for killing animals in certain circumstances - "when animals need to be controlled due to overpopulation" or "to protect habitat overall ecosystem health for all animals." I'd missed that. He cited http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/9/12/74042/0929.
Reading this, and rereading some of Jason's other posts, underneath all the misleading blather about environmentalists' moral complicity (or blood lust) for killing whales, dolphins and seals, I finally start to have a dim glimmer about where Jason would locate the boundary conditions between acceptable and unacceptable reasons for killing animals.
He seems to be saying that killing an animal (or even many animals) can be acceptable when this is necessary or beneficial for the welfare of other animals (either conspecifics, or animals of other species), but not if the killing primarily or exclusively serves the interests of human beings.
If I've misconstrued Jason's meaning or intent, then I'm sure he'll say so. If not - if this is all that being `morally advanced' on this matter is ultimately about, then why bother?
Robert Delfs
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 10:19 pm
23 Sep 2006
"Prof Scorse and others:
Thanks for some interesting questions. I agree with you that environmentalism at its core is about respecting life, but strongly disagree with you about what this means.
We are environmentalists for different reasons and have differ and frequently conflicting values. But I dare say that an important part of the concerns of most of us is that we see many cases where the world`s resources are being over-exploited and wiped out due to lack of effective ownership rights or other management regimes.
We waste our time on moral grandstanding and undermine possibilities of focussing on pragmatic solutions. I may not care to see whales or other charismatic fauna "harvested" at all, and may want some individuals especially protected, but I realize that others have differeing values and that the resources are not mine and I cannot dictate either the values or uses of others. I will be content if we simply don`t willy-nilly destroy these resources.
If we implement reasonable property rights regimes, like we have for domestic animals and most other nonfugitive, non-open access resources, then the resources users will have the incentive to conserve the resource, and I can rest easy. In addition, I and others would also have a means to make our respective preferences felt, rather than through simply ranting at each other - I could invest in protecting whales for example, by paying whalers with exploitation rights to give them to me.
By ignoring the institutional underpinning that underlie the crisis, we waste our time and energy and engender hostility in others who, if the right institutions were in place, would have at least as much interest as we in protecting whals, fisheries or what-have-you.
Japan`s insistence on whaling - a loss-making enterprise that is now fully government-owned - can only be understood as an emotional reaction to Western stonewalling and moral grandstanding. Surely the Japanese must see that we need to resposnsibly manage whales and, more importantly, other fishing stocks that are rapidly collapsing due to the "tragedy of the commons" free-for-all now underway.
Whales would be a great place to start in applying what we already have learned about how to give resource users a long-term stake in resource use and sustainable management."
To add a few thoughts, my position seems rather close to Robert Delfs`. Any further position about trying to prevent the killing of "higher mammals" (placentals, as opposed to marsupials or montremes? or opposed to animals generally down to protista and archaea?) is a quagmire that admits of no firm distinctions, and for which the moral values of individuals differ.
Being an environmentalist requires firstly an understanding of the institutional underpinnings of speciaies extinction and a focus on achieving primary goals - namely, the preservation of species and ecosystems. Further desires beyond that are personal and should not trump a focus on achieving major policy goals.
As noted, if management regimes are properyl structured they will include mechanisms by which individual prepferences can also be expressed, via a marketplace that requires people to put their money wher their mouth is. Much beyond this strikes me as folly and arrogance, and and I worry that it manifests a lack of respect for the the rights and desires of others. that is at odds with achieving primary goals.
Regards,
Tom
Permalink
dwm376s Posted 11:05 pm
23 Sep 2006
In my statements above I was not criticizing the animal rights/welfare segment of society. I was simply trying to point out a fundamental difference between two schools of thought (animal rights vs hunting community).
To answer your questions on "...what weapons do you use? Under what circumstances and where do you hunt? Do you always kill what you hit? Do you eat it all?"
The majority of my hunting consists of upland bird hunting, waterfowl, turkey, and whitetail deer hunting. Thus I have used a standard 12 gauge shotgun for all. I also used a .270 caliber rifle to deer hunt with. As well as a .50 caliber muzzleloader during the appropriate season. I'd be lying if I said every animal I have shot at and hit, was recovered. However, I'd guess that the rate of return is above the 90th percentile. And of course I eat what is killed. Sure there is some waste in the form of viscera etc.
Your stereotyping of hunters with the statement that, "....there are so-called "hunters" wandering around with 50 caliber guns drunk out of their minds blasting away at anything anywhere. They are not, and never really will, be concerned with the environment..." is a ridiculous generalization.
Are there idiots out there such as you described? Yes. However what percentage of the hunting community fits that description? A very, very low percentage.
You describing a hunter in that sense is the same as me saying, "those animal rights folks like PETA and Fund for Animals are nothing but a bunch of bunny-hugging hippies. They are the same people that are part of the Earth Liberterian Front."
You and I both know that statements like this do not apply to the community as a whole. And there is no place for comments like that in a conversation that is aiming at "do[ing] it in such a way that we can listen to and hear each other without name calling?"
Bookerly,
just for clarities sake here is an image of a typical .50 caliber level gun that is used in huntig.
Here is an image of a .50 caliber military rifle.
You will NEVER see a hunter in the woods using the latter.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:20 pm
23 Sep 2006
To change the metaphor, the better to appreciate the art in that brilliant but troubling sentence: it amazes me even now, as I review the video, how I managed to pirouette from one end of the stage, and, barely touching anything solid beneath my foot, come to stop at a point so very far away from where I had begun. What a breathtaking performance! And, yes, alas!, in the final analysis, a failure.
The explanation of the sentence goes something like this. Jason is wondering, Is this issue important? Or is it irresponsible and destructive to make much of it, and so risk creating division? My answer is, It is indeed good to discuss this issue, and it is very bad to suppress thinking as if for the sake of an effective activism which requires unanimity.
It was not necessary at that point to name the name of our valiant, all-vanquishing Virgo friend. But the name came to me naturally, since he is abundantly on the record as saying things to the effect of "what we need is less thought and more action." And I think there are many others, not named, but I know they are there, who would agree. Even now, on the "Ishmael" thread, some testify to thinking less of Daniel Quinn for expressing vague ideals with no concern for giving practical advice. Some commenters on Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" phenomenon (nobody in Gristmill, though, I think) have found fault with what they consider a too easily assembled and not really majorly effective list of "things to do."
It may not be very evident, but I like David Roberts a lot. Whether he appreciates my likening his emphasis on effective activism to the plainly virtuous efforts of the Allied leaders in WWII toward toppling the plainly evil Axis powers, I cannot say; but it is meant as a compliment.
I interpret those leaders' failure to do anything to interrupt the Holocaust, of which they seem to have had satisfactory reports -- not because they thought little of Jews (they may have, but that is irrelevant), but because considering all that was involved was a distraction from the principal strategy -- , as an example of a driving activism that fails to take due account of matters of terrific importance, matters that are related to the activism's focus, but are not recognized as central.
I certainly do NOT mean to suggest that David Roberts is in any way callous, neglectful, immoral or thoughtless, with no care for the suffering of the vulnerable and helpless. No, not at all. From what I know about him -- only through his own words -- , I am confident he is one of the finest persons on the planet.
Nor do I mean to suggest that the killing of animals, and the use of parts of their bodies, is morally equivalent either to the Holocaust or to other acts of genocide.
I do mean to suggest, however, that refusing to think of the killing or suffering of animals as an important issue in moral philosophy is not praiseworthy, and the fruit that that conscious refusal bears will not be good. Whether that refusal is morally equivalent to the refusal of the Allied leaders to interrupt the Holocaust, at this point I would say, No, they are not equivalent; but they are definitely comparable decisions of the same sort.
Robert, Frogfish, I am much more surprised by your reaction than by David's. That you felt that you needed to support your rhetoric by resorting to vocabulary from a religious tradition that apparently you do not understand very well, is unfortunate. Of course, using that vocabulary is by now a commonplace among many who wish to discredit an adversary who comes across as too uncompromising. Rhetorically, it may still be effective. Intellectually, it is weak.
Mind you, as a Catholic (after a fashion), I take no offense whatsoever at your numerous references to some of the Catholic Church's less mirthful moments. We have had it coming, so far as I can see.
But I very much dislike the epithet "neo-religious." Inasmuch as my morality can be called religious, it is based on a religiosity of a very ancient kind. There is absolutely nothing "neo" about it.
And "frightening"? A wee bit of paranoia there? I promise you, dear Robert, you should know yourself to be very much at peace, were I the greatest of your dangers.
More importantly, you should know that I have never presented Jason's positions regarding environmentalism vis-a`-vis animal welfare as my own. Never. I have all along made clear that there are some major differences between the values of (most) environmentalists interested in biodiversity and those of (most) animal-rights ethicists. I have always been careful to say that the subjects must be handled separately, and that it would not be good to intrude the concerns of people interested in animal welfare into Gristmill's discussions.
So it is all Jason's fault.
By the same token, I admire him for taking on himself this challenge, I am greatly enjoying how he presents his arguments, and I want him to know I appreciate what he is trying to do. (And I agree with something Patrick said: I like him very much more on this subject, than I do when he is into his free-market, omni-ownership shtik.) As I read him, his argumentation is much more based on logic, than on emotion or sentimentality or anything like religion. And if he lapses into moral bullying, well, you know, he is young, and that is a young man's style.
I agree with his several critics, that he has not quite presented his case yet. It is still a work in progress. I would wish that he be more accommodating of the doubts of his critics, and that they for their part not be so quick to resent his forwardness.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
davidintokyo Posted 11:37 pm
23 Sep 2006
Everyone is against the unsustainable killing of whales.
The whalers want to kill them at sustainable rates.
The anti-whalers want to protect every last whale and make sure that they die in some manner that has nothing to do with humans.
Environmentalists of the conservationist type only concern themselves with whether the activity is sustainable or not.
If whaling is sustainable, that does not mean that an environmentalist must support it. The environmentalist simply has no issue. Whether s/he is tolerant of whaling is simply a matter of cultural preference.
2) There's much talk about morals, but it's all very one sided. The whalers have moral arguments for whaling themselves, but no one appears to have bothered to look into them, assuming that the "animal welfare" version is the only perspective that is worth consideration.
I'd write about it myself, but I'm a conservationist, and as such I have no issue here.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:07 am
24 Sep 2006
You write:
<<
1) There seems to be an attitude of "with us or against us". This doesn't fit.
>>
Although many with a strong personal commitment to animal welfare or animal rights have written in support of Jason, especially in the thread on the use or abuse of the term "murder," I think it has been only Jason so far who has demanded of everyone a choice. Your expressing that choice by adopting the infamous words of George W. Bush is curious, and might not be to Jason's liking. We shall see.
<<
Everyone is against the unsustainable killing of whales.
The whalers want to kill them at sustainable rates.
The anti-whalers want to protect every last whale and make sure that they die in some manner that has nothing to do with humans.
>>
Actually, I was impressed by something from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that somebody sent us (it may have been you, but I think it was somebody else), with a statement from a government official complaining that so much time was used by anti-whaling spokespersons at the IWA conference, that important studies on the harmful effects of pollution on cetacean populations could not be presented.
As unfortunate as that was, it does not mean the anti-whalers were wicked or stupid or even altogether misguided. Pollution is obviously an extremely serious problem which demands to be addressed. And pollution of the oceans remains not well enough understood, so all new research deserves to be published. Still, we human beings are killing ourselves all the time with our own pollution; that is a horrible state of affairs, to be sure, but the moral urgency is not quite so mind-focusing as that caused by the discussion of regular intentional acts of killing.
<<
Environmentalists of the conservationist type only concern themselves with whether the activity is sustainable or not.
>>
I am not sure that is entirely true. It seems improbable to me -- and I suspect to Jason as well -- that no environmentalist has been concerned to ask what is the point, the value, of biodiversity and the conservation of species, what good is supposed to come of it, and who is supposed to benefit. No doubt, many environmentalists give anthropocentric answers to such questions, and it would follow that they will have no problem with the sustainable killing of animals for human use. But is that it? Are only anthropocentric answers available to environmentalists? It would seem the tradition of Aldo Leopold and Rachel Carson tells us otherwise.
<<
If whaling is sustainable, that does not mean that an environmentalist must support it. The environmentalist simply has no issue. Whether s/he is tolerant of whaling is simply a matter of cultural preference.
>>
"Culture" and "tradition" are not irrelevant, but they have no real bearing, finally, in deciding what is right. The ethicist Alasdair Macintyre is correct to say that moral relativism, truly so called, does not exist. However, there is a de-facto moral relativism which at its best is a political or social tactic for negotiating relationships in a world of countless cultures, beliefs and values, but at its worst is a disgraceful kind of laziness.
This is not at all to say that it is in any way easy to judge, to rebuke, to criticize, to pontificate. No; most moral truths are very hard to discover, and religious leaders and ideologues are wrong to insist that the answers are at hand. It is even likely that many moral truths are asymptotically remote: we can approach them ever more closely, but we will never quite be able to reach them. Nevertheless, we definitely can have a sense of when we are being pointed in a direction that will send us further away. Moral truths exist; they require much thought and discussion in order for them to be learned; it is false to say that one direction is as good as another.
<<
2) There's much talk about morals, but it's all very one sided. The whalers have moral arguments for whaling themselves, but no one appears to have bothered to look into them, assuming that the "animal welfare" version is the only perspective that is worth consideration.
>>
Point taken. And I generally agree. For myself, be it noted, I have written to Gristmill, to the HSUS, to the Globe and Mail and other Canadian newspapers, and to Canadian government officials, of my concern for the fishermen of Quebec and the Maritimes who participate in the harp seal slaughter, and for the communities that they desperately try to support.
Also, be it noted, one of the most impressive features of the blog entries from the Greenpeace activists who were following the Japanese whaling fleet was their concern for the whalers. They had some Japanese-speakers with them, and on numerous occasions engaged in respectful conversations across the water. They over and over again made it clear that they would do nothing to endanger the whalers. While, as I recall, they avoided referring explicitly to the Sea Shepherd people, they plainly eschewed Sea Shepherd's more aggressive tactics.
On the other hand, the interests of hunters, including whalers, are of ancient origin and commonplace, traditionally accepted by most people. The interests of the hunted animals, as presented by the advocates of animal welfare, only recently are receiving anything like a wide hearing in our civilization.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Robert Delfs Posted 2:19 am
24 Sep 2006
I am much more surprised by your reaction than by David's. That you felt that you needed to support your rhetoric by resorting to vocabulary from a religious tradition that apparently you do not understand very well, is unfortunate.
Did I really misconstrue the traditions of your Church so badly? Perhaps the full meaning of concepts like doctrinal truth, heresy, excommunication and moral error are simply beyond my poor understanding. If so, then I hope you'll enlighten this uncouth heathen where he got it so wrong.
Otherwise, I'd ask that you not dismiss the fears of unbelievers regarding inquisition and purges so lightly. As anyone who has worked in China during the past half century knows well, the petty internal cleansing the church undertook in medieval Europe as only one of many similar episodes. This sort of abuse happens all all the time, all over the world. Don't imagine I'm alone in viewing Jason's proposed tests of moral virtue, presented as the new orthodoxy, as abhorrent.
You say that your own views on the tension between environmentalism vs. animal rights are quite distinct from Jason's, but you profess to admire his willingness to divide supporters of environmentalism over this issue, and presumably also his evident enthusiasm for purging from the ranks of environmentalists anyone whose behavior and moral standards don't quite meet the mark.
Fair enough. Who would have thought that the environmental movement would have survived this long without a schism to render it all null and void. There might be world enough and time for us to debate who shall be purged from the ranks of the good and worthy. That would certainly be easier than doing something constructive. I hope you'll let me know when you and Jason have finished compiling your lists, and which one I'm on. (But I think I can guess.)
I'll leave it to David Roberts to say whether your backtracking on the moral equivalence of animal feed lots and Nazi death camps was sufficient. It wasn't for me.
Robert Delfs
Permalink
Roz Cummins Posted 2:20 am
24 Sep 2006
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:03 am
24 Sep 2006
Now consider this analogy. Abortion opponents claim to want to save the life of unborn children. But of course if they really wanted to do that, they would devote themselves to family planning and education. That would be the pragmatic approach. Unfortunately, slow, incremental progress on those fronts doesn't pack the visceral, emotional thrill of demonizing abortion doctors. Abortion opponents are, in this way, less committed to their purported cause than they are committed to the thrill of their own self-righteousness.
Now, say you want to prevent the death of individual animals. The best way to do that is to slow and reverse the loss of habitat, the poisoning of the air and water, and the fundamental alteration of the climate. Those things are wiping out whole species -- which I hasten to point out includes every individual within that species -- at a dizzying rate. Compared to the mass deaths caused by these global environmental challenges, the killing of whales by the Japanese is a tiny drop in the bucket.
But opposing whaling carries that visceral thrill, doesn't it? It allows for posturing and moralizing and lecturing. It comes complete with easy bad guys to demonize. It is an invitation to contemplate one's own superior virtue, if these many threads on the subject are to be believed.
So there: I'm an allied commander ignoring the Holocaust, and you're an abortion opponent demonizing abortion doctors. Analogies are fun!
I don't support the cruel or unnecessary killing of animals, particularly more advanced mammals. It disturbs me to contemplate. In a perfect world I would eliminate the practice. But I have, if you'll forgive the pun, bigger fish to fry.
www.grist.org
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:20 am
24 Sep 2006
be of good cheer! You have nothing to fear. Jason and I have no plans to take over the world and put to death anyone who refuses to accept baptism into our animal welfare church.
In fact, I have never given much thought to the possibility of taking over the world. But if I were going to join forces with anyone, I would much rather with you than with Jason.
(Nothing personal, Jason.)
You write:
<<
Did I really misconstrue the traditions of your Church so badly? Perhaps the full meaning of concepts like doctrinal truth, heresy, excommunication and moral error are simply beyond my poor understanding. If so, then I hope you'll enlighten this uncouth heathen where he got it so wrong.
>>
Well, no, I do not think you misconstrued anything, and I do not think you referred to anything that is not, alas!, to our lasting shame, in the historical record. Of the historical subjects that you mentioned earlier, the Inquisition was a uniquely Catholic invention (I believe), but the others have parallels in the other major Christian traditions, both Eastern Orthodox and Protestant. The four subjects you mention here, however, are common to many religions, and are certainly not peculiar to Christianity. My own understanding of what the body of "doctrinal truth" contains is much more restrictive than that of most Catholics; in fact I should not be surprised if many would convict me of heresy; and not a small number might even seek my excommunication, were I at all important.
"Heathen" is a term of insult, and is not in my vocabulary. You are a very learned person, and I certainly do not consider you "uncouth."
What I would just ask you to consider is why you thought it best to express your dislike of Jason's emphases with vocabulary associated with the Catholic Church. Surely the English language is big enough to contain words that do not have such distracting assocations?
<<
Don't imagine I'm alone in viewing Jason's proposed tests of moral virtue, presented as the new orthodoxy, as abhorrent.
>>
OK, I will not, since you advise me not to. Obviously I am reading Jason in a quite different way. For one thing, I should think it would be clear to everybody that he has no authority to make any kind of demands of anybody. For another, everything that he has written on this subject looks plainly like a work in progress. He has not persuaded me of anything so far, and I feel under no compulsion to agree with him on anything. True, it is disturbing that he does not show any sign of being prepared to accept any wisdom from anybody else. But as I said before, he is a young man, etc.
<<
You say that your own views on the tension between environmentalism vs. animal rights are quite distinct from Jason's, but you profess to admire his willingness to divide supporters of environmentalism over this issue, and presumably also his evident enthusiasm for purging from the ranks of environmentalists anyone whose behavior and moral standards don't quite meet the mark.
>>
I have never made any such profession. I do indeed admire him, but certainly not for these reasons.
<<
I'll leave it to David Roberts to say whether your backtracking on the moral equivalence of animal feed lots and Nazi death camps was sufficient. It wasn't for me.
>>
"And oh by the way, have you stopped beating your wife?" I backtracked from nothing. I never asserted the moral equivalence of these things. What I wrote earlier was klutzily written, and, to my regret, it seems to have given the impression that I believe in such an equivalence. I do not; and I hope that the attempted explanation that I wrote a short while ago makes that clear.
It tickles me, to be commended to the tender mercies of David Roberts, that just judge, born under the sign of the cynical, ever-scrutinizing Virgin Goddess of Justice.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:54 am
24 Sep 2006
(Actually, if I drove a car, which I do not, I would have one of those stylized Ichthyostega images, in the body of which is written "Darwin," stuck on the back.)
No, dear David, of course you are not "an allied commander neglecting the Holocaust," and I never meant to suggest you were, in spite of the odd twists and turns of my futile analogy, which took on a life of its own. And I am well aware of your many statements for the record -- and am most impressed by that record -- that the prevention of cruelty to animals, and of their exploitation, is an issue that matters to you. I hope by now it is quite clear that I intended none of the sinister, foul-smelling implications of my klutzy sentence.
Not that it is at all important to you, but, just to set the record straight, I have always been a Geraldine Ferraro Catholic, when it comes to women's reproductive rights. I.e., "we do not all agree." As I said a while ago on another occasion, identifying myself as Catholic is more trouble than it is worth, because there are so many things that are popularly believed to be "Catholic doctrine" which I do not accept at all.
So please go back to frying your big fish. For such as that art thou loved.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
davidintokyo Posted 7:59 am
24 Sep 2006
Yes. The IWC's "Revised Management Procedure" has been tested against a range of scenarios, including catastrophes and sudden reductions in population by half. As a result, the catch limits that the RMP permits are extremely conservative. One of the developers of the RMP noted that were similar principles applied to other types of fisheries, most of them would have to be shut down immediately. It's a very conservative system.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:45 am
24 Sep 2006
Dear DWM376s,
Well, I partially communicated (smile). Part of my point in stereotyping hunters is not that I believe in that stereotype, but rather to show how easy it is to do. Just as it is easy to stereotype animal welfare (or rights) activists.
While you do not care to be stereotyped (me either!) nor do people who care about animals, and they cover a wide variety of beliefs and types.
I asked about your hunting habits not to attack you, but to let you create an image of what kind of hunter you are. This is important to discussions of this type, because we all create images of each other in our minds (I cringe at how I must appear! (LOL)).
If you wish to defend hunting, you need to be clearer about what kind of hunting you practise and advocate. That is one of the reasons we all offer tidbits about ourselves (being the net, they may or may not be true, but are indicative of attitudes anyway!).
As to the weapons, I am not sure why anyone needs a 50 caliber gun to hunt. At least not in the lower 48 states.
But this is not "The Gun Show", so I will leave that issue aside.
I would like to hope there may be common ground, but if there isn't, it will be an interesting (long-term) political war....
pace,
patrick
Permalink
willa Posted 1:01 pm
24 Sep 2006
Robert Delfs,
If Caniscandida won't say it, I will.
The slaughter of innocent creatures, ripped from their herds/families and shipped long distances in horrible conditions only to be put to death for no good reason in ways that range from morally questionable to outright horrifying--sounds a lot like both the Holocaust and the meat industry. Suffering is suffering.
(by the way, I'm Jewish, so don't even go there)
You claim not to care if I think it, only if I say it, and to that I say, what the HELL? This is, last I checked, a discussion forum. If you don't want to hear other people's dissenting opinions, you might be in the wrong place. If you don't want other people to be able to express their dissenting opinions at all, ever, I'm sure there are some lovely dictatorships to which you can apply for citizenship.
Regardless, however, of how mad this issue makes me, or you, or anyone else, there's a no-brainer way out of this whole argument. Domestic animals in factory farms are destroying the environment. If you really want to save biodiversity, for whatever reason, we should all be able to agree that going into the supermarket and buying a package of meat is a bad move. I personally care less about how we get there--to a humane and sustainable world--than I care about whether we get there in time, and I would have thought all environmentalists and all who care about animals could at least agree on this much.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:46 pm
24 Sep 2006
you are right; I failed to notice this remarkable sentence by Robert. I am very sorry to have disappointed you.
But thanks mightily for stepping up.
Robert, and many other scientists like him, do much good for all kinds of animals, in their own way. David Roberts, and many other writers and other activists, do much good for the well-being of all living things on this planet. Of course neither you nor I want to impede their efforts in carrying out the good works that they intend.
Nevertheless, you remind me of my point, which I lost by my own inarticulate fault: Our thought for those who are now suffering, or who may suffer, must never be considered to be an unwanted interruption into our active plans of the moment.
Thanks mightily, Willa, for your powerful words. Please know that, weak as I am, I am on your side.
That is, I hope you will honor me by allowing me to join you at your side.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
willa Posted 9:44 pm
24 Sep 2006
Thanks for telling me, and reminding others, that in fact Robert and David are on our side in many ways too. Good to know.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 3:52 am
09 Feb 2007
[...]
For most of us - I speak for myself and at least some conservationists whose work I deeply respect - environmentalism is not a church.
Merriam Webster's Unabridged Dictionary v.3:
-ism
3 a : doctrine, theory, or cult <Buddhism> <Calvinism> <Platonism> <salvationism> <vegetarianism> b : adherence to a system or a class of principles <neutralism> <realism> <socialism> <stoicism>
"No one joins a cult. They join a movement."
Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple
google.com/search?q=jonestown+documentary+trailer
Permalink