Write *Something* Month: Philosophy Project Part 1
Instead of NaNo, I thought I might attempt a "try to write something, anything at all, every day" Month instead. And while that does not necessarily translate into posting something every day, some of it might show up here, just to prove to myself that I'm doing it. Though I may end up writing about all and anything (or, if things go badly, nothing) I at least have an idea that I might use this as an opportunity to finally try to parse an old (and ongoing!) philosophical project of mine into short(ish) texts examining its constituent parts. So that's where I'll start.
Constructing a non-anthropocentric value-system, Part 1: Why?
I've been bothered by anthropocentric world-views for almost as long as I can remember. Not primarily as a consequence of being a somewhat asocial person (though it probably helps) but simply because most of these philosophies seem to make so little effort to provide rational justification for an assumption - i.e. that human beings are more important than everything else - despite its inherent, glaringly obvious source of bias. Of course human beings are likely to think that humans should be put first. They are human beings! (It's not that it's not possible to make proper, reasoned argument to support that view - it is, though I'm yet to be convinced by one - but that such arguments are so seldom even considered needed. Human supremacy is usually treated as a given.)
Unsurprisingly, this issue is often brought to a head when discussing topics related to environmentalism and conservation biology, as, sooner or later, you're going to have to deal with the question of 'why?' Why should human beings care about and invest resources into biological diversity, into rain-forests or coral reefs, into whales, tigers, a rare plant or a small population of some little-known local variation of an insect species?
While you do hear some moral arguments ("we have an obligation..." etc.) they are usually not very well reasoned, and the most common answers tend to come down on the side of utilitarianism, focusing on how the preservation of these things may benefit humans in one way or another, e.g. such as putting a straightforward economic value on "ecosystem services" provided by mangrove forest as fish nurseries, wild insects as crop pollinators etc.
I recognise this as good strategy. If you are arguing with people who are more concerned about their livelihood and/or wealth than any possible moral obligation to non-human entities that they might have (a category of people which after all probably includes most of us, at one time or another) then it makes good sense to make it about humans, about livelihoods, about the economic incentives. These are not bad arguments in themselves - they are after all perfectly true. I use them myself. But while they represent good short-term strategy, they are problematic in the underlying ethic that they inadvertently promote: that the value of nature is solely dependent on its value to humans. Which, even apart from that irksome anthropocentrism in itself, means that sooner or later the balance sheet will not turn out in favour of preservation, and the argument will turn around to instead condone the exploitation of any bit of nature that simply isn't doing enough for human beings to justify its existence.
Since I do not believe (or at least has yet to be convinced) in the inherent supremacy of human beings, this is obviously not a good enough answer for me. But then, my own contention, that all things have an inherent value in themselves, is in some ways just as arbitrary, just as biased. I know why I want biological diversity, why I want rain-forests and coral reefs, whales and tigers and sequoias and meadow flowers and little known local variations of insect species that I've never even seen, and most certainly never had any personal benefit of. It has little to do with morality, or obligation, certainly nothing to do with utilitarianism. I simply want these things to exist. Because they make the world more varied, more beautiful, more complex, more magnificent. Love, if you like. Or simply an addiction to the richness of experience. An emotional incentive rather than a pragmatically economic, but just as selfish, just as as biased. I want.
So what I wanted to do was to see if and how the argument that all things have inherent value could be made, rationally, and with an attempt to minimise subjective bias. I was - and still am - curious about how such a system would turn out, and what the ethical consequences would be. So that's what this little project is about - an attempt to o try to create a non-anthropocentric system of value - an Ethic for All Things. It's really only a private thought experiment, just me working from first principles and occasional discussions with friends but with no actual research into already existing theories. Although I've been thinking about it for a long time I haven't got very far, and I've no idea where it will end - perhaps only as a headache and muddle of contradictory notions, not much further down the road. But so far I'm enjoying the ride.
This entry was originally posted at http://corvuscornix.dreamwidth.org/43022.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
Constructing a non-anthropocentric value-system, Part 1: Why?
I've been bothered by anthropocentric world-views for almost as long as I can remember. Not primarily as a consequence of being a somewhat asocial person (though it probably helps) but simply because most of these philosophies seem to make so little effort to provide rational justification for an assumption - i.e. that human beings are more important than everything else - despite its inherent, glaringly obvious source of bias. Of course human beings are likely to think that humans should be put first. They are human beings! (It's not that it's not possible to make proper, reasoned argument to support that view - it is, though I'm yet to be convinced by one - but that such arguments are so seldom even considered needed. Human supremacy is usually treated as a given.)
Unsurprisingly, this issue is often brought to a head when discussing topics related to environmentalism and conservation biology, as, sooner or later, you're going to have to deal with the question of 'why?' Why should human beings care about and invest resources into biological diversity, into rain-forests or coral reefs, into whales, tigers, a rare plant or a small population of some little-known local variation of an insect species?
While you do hear some moral arguments ("we have an obligation..." etc.) they are usually not very well reasoned, and the most common answers tend to come down on the side of utilitarianism, focusing on how the preservation of these things may benefit humans in one way or another, e.g. such as putting a straightforward economic value on "ecosystem services" provided by mangrove forest as fish nurseries, wild insects as crop pollinators etc.
I recognise this as good strategy. If you are arguing with people who are more concerned about their livelihood and/or wealth than any possible moral obligation to non-human entities that they might have (a category of people which after all probably includes most of us, at one time or another) then it makes good sense to make it about humans, about livelihoods, about the economic incentives. These are not bad arguments in themselves - they are after all perfectly true. I use them myself. But while they represent good short-term strategy, they are problematic in the underlying ethic that they inadvertently promote: that the value of nature is solely dependent on its value to humans. Which, even apart from that irksome anthropocentrism in itself, means that sooner or later the balance sheet will not turn out in favour of preservation, and the argument will turn around to instead condone the exploitation of any bit of nature that simply isn't doing enough for human beings to justify its existence.
Since I do not believe (or at least has yet to be convinced) in the inherent supremacy of human beings, this is obviously not a good enough answer for me. But then, my own contention, that all things have an inherent value in themselves, is in some ways just as arbitrary, just as biased. I know why I want biological diversity, why I want rain-forests and coral reefs, whales and tigers and sequoias and meadow flowers and little known local variations of insect species that I've never even seen, and most certainly never had any personal benefit of. It has little to do with morality, or obligation, certainly nothing to do with utilitarianism. I simply want these things to exist. Because they make the world more varied, more beautiful, more complex, more magnificent. Love, if you like. Or simply an addiction to the richness of experience. An emotional incentive rather than a pragmatically economic, but just as selfish, just as as biased. I want.
So what I wanted to do was to see if and how the argument that all things have inherent value could be made, rationally, and with an attempt to minimise subjective bias. I was - and still am - curious about how such a system would turn out, and what the ethical consequences would be. So that's what this little project is about - an attempt to o try to create a non-anthropocentric system of value - an Ethic for All Things. It's really only a private thought experiment, just me working from first principles and occasional discussions with friends but with no actual research into already existing theories. Although I've been thinking about it for a long time I haven't got very far, and I've no idea where it will end - perhaps only as a headache and muddle of contradictory notions, not much further down the road. But so far I'm enjoying the ride.
This entry was originally posted at http://corvuscornix.dreamwidth.org/43022.html. Please comment there using OpenID.