Post a photograph or a thousand words

I choose for a thousand words this time.

 

I choose a photograph..

 

Awesome.

 

I have Neither I am Afriad...

 

makes a lot of sense!!

 

I am honored to have you in my thread for your first post.

 

Can I choose a small diagram and 300 words?

 

Absolutely not.

 

Do they have to be any words in particular?

 

photograph of anything?

 

okay....here's you a pic lol j/j

 

here is my picture

 

i wonder if i still have a few kicking arround on here somewhere

select tells me i have none to choose from

manage attatchments says i have 85.1k worth somewhere

 

any pic will do

 

​

I Cillian Murphy.​

​

I grab any opportunity to post his pic and write a little note. ​

 

Sarah Prospero
​

WLDF 302
​

1. Emmanuel Kant, an influential German philosopher of the
Enlightenment, developed a strong anthropocentric theory based on the idea that nonhumans do not enter into the realm of moral concern. Kant makes it clear that moral law, the basis of freedom and autonomy, only applies to rational beings. He defines a rational being as one which has a fundamental understanding of how the world works. Kant explains that the ability to give oneself moral law has intrinsic value, which therefore gives intrinsic value to rational beings. Therefore, rationality must be required for something to be an object of moral concern.
According to Kant, rationality is a universal idea, with all rational beings working toward the same intrinsic goal of a rational world governed by moral law. A rational being has the capacity for ethical reasoning and must be able to understand abstract ideas, live a life based on universal principals, and give itself moral law. This means that if a being can give itself moral law, it also has the ability to evaluate and apply an understanding moral law to ethical concepts regarding environmentalism, such as the preservation of endangered species. Since the same moral laws are only shared between rational beings, nonrational beings lack intrinsic value because they cannot give themselves moral law.
Kant’s anthropocentric theory states that animals and natural objects such as land or water are not rational because they lack the ability to communicate with symbolic language. This prevents them from conceptualizing abstract ideas such as “good” and “bad”. Animals and natural objects do not enter into the scope of moral concern because they cannot use universal moral principals or analyze questions out of a specific time and place. Only humans have language and communication skills which enable the discussion of abstract ideas such as environmental policy or morality, distinguishing between what is “right” and what is “wrong”.
Kant’s ideas have influenced modern theorists such as William H. Murdy, a representative of weak anthropocentrism. Like Kant, Murdy also feels that it is natural for humans (rational beings) to value other humans more highly than the rest of nature (nonrational beings). Evolutionarily speaking, this is the proper attitude for all species in order for them to maximize their own success. Murdy’s weak anthropocentrism is based on an enlightened self-interest, where humans must ascribe value to all parts of the natural world. This is different from Kant, who feels that only human interests are of value because humans are the only rational beings.
Murdy’s weak anthropocentrism is a much better basis for an environmental ethic because even though it is looking out for human interest, Murdy makes it clear that humans cannot go out and do whatever they please to the environment. He knows that humans must exploit nature in order to live, but uncontrolled human exploitation would lead to global disaster. This means that when humans value nature, they are still being anthropocentric because they need a healthy environment in order to plan for long-term survival. Kant’s strong anthropocentric theory does not ascribe value to any nonhumans, so it leaves humans with the moral capacity to overexploit resources and jeopardize the anthropocentric goal of long-term survival and reproduction of humans.
Murdy’s proposal is to maintain a general ecological stability in which humans keep a healthy environmental ethic to ensure the survival of future generations. He points out that it is not sensible to have a short-term completely human-centered view of the world because man has the ability to vastly change the environment to suit his needs. This ensures human biological success but it can also cause severe ecological problems and therefore long-term problems for the persistence of the human species.
Anthropocentrism is a belief in the meaningfulness, creativity, and value of humans. Weak anthropocentrism affirms the critical interrelatedness of the world, including interactions between humans and the natural world. Therefore, an environmental ethic based on Murdy’s weak anthropocentrism is more useful than that of Kant’s strong anthropocentrism because Kant only values humans and nothing else since by his definition, humans are the sole rational beings on the planet. Kant does point out that it is morally wrong to undermine other rational beings, which could be positive attribute to an environmental ethic because humans would not do things that end up hurting other humans as well as the environment. An example of this is when humans overexploit land and animals for the greed and wealth of the meat industry instead of using the land to grow grain to feed other starving humans. This is irrational and goes against Kant’s theory because humans are valuing animals, which are nonrational beings, over other rational beings. Yet Kant also says that the way humans treat nonrational beings (such as nature) does not directly interfere with the goal of a world ruled by rational moral law, so this leaves it open for humans to disregard any value which would be given to nature. If applied to an environmental ethic, Kant’s theory could end up being very detrimental for both humans and nature in the long run. Weak anthropocentrism proves to be a better basis for an environmental ethic since it calls for an ecologically informed self-interest.







2. Individualists have two major arguments regarding anthropocentrism. First, individualism asks anthropocentrists to place value on individuals regardless of species membership or social usefulness. It argues that a theory based on rationality, such as Kant’s strong anthropocentrism, is not valid because humans place value on beings which do not have normal rationality such as the mentally handicapped, babies, and the insane.
Individualism reminds humans that we have freedom of choice and we are capable of controlling our actions, so there is a moral obligation to ascribe value to beings which can suffer but are not rational by Kantian definition.
From an individualist perspective, placing value on sentient beings, or beings who have the ability to suffer, is just as important as valuing “normal” rational beings. Sentient beings have a center of awareness and can feel pain, whether it be physical, emotional, or psychological, for a lengthened period of time. For this reason, individualism points out that it is immoral for anthropocentrists to disregard the welfare of beings based solely on rationality. Unlike Kant’s strong anthropocentrism which places no value on nonhumans, individualism ascribes value to animals and non-rational humans because they are still capable of suffering.
Individualism also calls attention to the idea that in order for justice to be served, one must consider the interests of each being involved in a situation. This is much different from anthropocentrism where moral judgments are based on the wellbeing of rational humans as a whole, whereas individualism bases moral judgment of animals and nonrational humans on an individual basis. This is because individuals are seen as the ones who are conscious, who feel and make decisions, and who care about what happens to them. Individualists also realize that might does not make right. Although humans are powerful creatures and have the ability to drastically shape the outcome of another being’s life, this does not mean that humans are the only species with intrinsic value and can do whatever they please. Individualism takes into account the fact that humans have power over other species as well as other defenseless humans such as children, the ill, and the poor and realizes it is important for humans to protect the integrity of these beings. Anthropocentrism leaves the door open for humans to exploit other sentient beings and nonrational beings, a practice which individualism views as morally void.
Individualism overall does a good job of escaping the criticisms of anthropocentrism because it places value on things other than just rational beings. Since individualism looks out for the welfare of animals and nonrational humans, this can have a positive effect on the entire biotic community. Instead viewing humans as the only valued beings in the world, animals are also considered valuable. This means that there will be a greater amount of species diversity, which is good for ecosystem stability because all species are vastly interconnected. Anthropocentrism tends to homogenize the biotic community because it only values one species, unlike individualism.
Peter Singer is an individualist who speaks in terms of interests rather than rights. His moral theory is based on the happiness and unhappiness of sentient individuals, not of whole species and ecosystems. Singer is also a utilitarian and believes that to arrive at the best moral choice, one must consider the consequences of one’s actions regarding all of the sentient individuals affected by the action. Singer has an objection to the dominant Western tradition of anthropocentrism because he realizes that many non-humans are capable of emotions and pain, such as a dog missing his owner while the owner is away. Singer believes that it is too abstract for us to apply moral values to non-sentient beings such as trees and rivers because we cannot conceptualize a method for morally weighing these different forms of life.
One ethical dilemma concerning animal and human rights is the case of whale harvest by indigenous peoples in Alaska. For several thousand years, Eskimos in Alaska have hunted the bowhead whale. The large size of the whale makes it an important part of the annual subsistence harvest and sharing the whale with the whole community is an old and highly valued practice which gives meaning and identity to Eskimo communities. In 1977, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) imposed a ban on the harvest of bowhead whales by Alaska Eskimos. This was based on a population estimate of between 600 and 2000 whales and concern over increasing numbers of strikes.
Singer explains that it is speciesist to give preference to one’s own species, so when environmental policy is made, the interests of both humans and non-humans should be considered. Yet Singer also believes that it is not required to weigh the deaths of animals as morally equivalent to the death of human beings since humans are capable of planning for and influencing what will be around in the future. In this case, Singer would propose a management technique which increases whale populations to a point where Eskimos are still able to harvest whales. Even though whales are sentient beings, subsistence whale hunting is an integral part of Eskimo identity and survival. By banning whaling, the Eskimos may not acquire the food and resources needed to survive. Singer would suggest that based on this, Eskimos should be allowed to harvest whales as long as they practiced sound management and do not wipe out all of the whales.


3. Callicott and Rolston are two modern ecocentrists with similar yet different views regarding the Land Ethic. Callicott is a strong advocate of Aldo Leopold and his Land Ethic, where moral consideration is extended beyond humans and individuals to the land itself. He builds on Leopold’s definition of land health, nature’s capacity for self-renewal, and explains that human activities and impacts should not disrupt ecosystem functions. Ecosystem health is seen as both intrinsically good and objective. Callicott believes that nature is dynamic and change is a fundamental feature of nature. Since man is a part of nature, anthropogenic changes are natural and expected, yet the integrity and stability of the land’s health should be maintained.
Nature is also seen as functional, and has utility as well as inherent value. Callicott supports the idea of autopoesis, where land is viewed in this sense as an organism because it is self-making. He also makes it clear that land should retain its original biodiversity when feasible and ecosystem function should not be disrupted. Callicott realizes that humans have an impact on nature. He feels that this is okay as long as economic development is compatible with land health and is low-impact.
In contrast to Callicott, Rolston has a view which blends both anthropocentric and biocentric values. Rolsten explains that since ecosystems to not exist as tangible entities which can be valued, it is challenging to respect nature as a whole being. Rather, he sees the land as aggregations of individuals with unique characteristics, including critical problems which humans must face for the future. Like Callicott, he has a moral concern which includes nature, but also has an anthropocentric view that resource consumption is important. He also feels that ecosystems should not be treated as organisms because they contain many individual parts which influence each other.
Unlike Callicott, Rolston feels that ecosystems are spontaneously organizing systems which persist through time, challenging Leopold’s land ethic principles of ecosystem integrity and stability. Rolston clearly distinguishes between ecosystems, individual organisms, and species, stating that ecosystems have emergent qualities ripple out beyond their parts. In a weak anthropocentric way, Rolston explains that land ethics have become Earth ethics, a developing environmental ethic which optimizes natural values in compliment to human concerns.
Bill Devall is an advocate of the deep ecology movement (DEM). His concept of ecosophy, a philosophy of ecological equilibrium, aims to raise awareness on a large scale and make long-term, fundamental changes in the way which humans interact with nature. Instead of patching up harm we have caused, Devall stresses the importance of a new ecological paradigm. He says that mild reforms are inadequate, and with technology and human population constantly expanding, we must think about environmental ethics on a larger time scale.
Devall wants social change on a grand scale, with crucial importance given to living in harmony with nature. He asks that when we consider environmental problems, we think of our “ecological self”, where we identify with nature as a part of us. Devall asserts that progress toward a sustainable future has been too slow. Leopold is much less radical a sense because he claims that anthropogenic changes are unavoidable. His land ethic is a sort of “shallow ecology” which aims to fight against pollution and is reform-oriented. It does not include ecocentrism or deep changes such as sustainability, like Devall suggests. Leopold is not looking for change on such a large timescale; instead, he speaks of minimizing impact whenever possible – not a complete ecological paradigm shift.
Devall’s deep ecological perspective differs from Leopold’s perspective because it rejects anthropocentrism and it develops a spiritual connection with the environment. Leopold’s Land Ethic was very influential and a step in the right direction when it was proposed because it was practical and could be easily implemented through politics. Devall has proposed a way for humans to deal with issues of ecological concern which will help aid future generations, yet will take a great deal of cooperation between humans for it to work on such a large scale.

 

one of my favorite movies