Leopold says in his essay "The Land Ethic:" “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”
To think through what this means, we need to examine several key terms. I will list some of them and pose a preliminary (though far from exhaustive) question about each:
"tends" -- Does this term suggest Leopold is advocating a dominantly consequentialist (as opposed to a deontological or virtue-based) concept of morality?
"integrity" -- How shall we understand this term in an ecological context? Is more integration always better?
"stability" -- Likewise, not everything that is stable is healthy from the standpoint of life; think of the moon. How shall we understand stability as a value?
"beauty" -- Even if aesthetics is more than a matter of mere preference, are all beautiful things good for the biosphere? Nuclear detonations? Perhaps these three descriptors sometimes work against each other.
"biotic community" -- we need a much fuller understanding of what this is (including the fact that it's not a big, happy family).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I do not have a clear understanding of the limits of the biotic community. Is the moon included? It certainly influences life on earth; organisms living within the intertidal zone of a beach depend on the moon's gravitational force to control the tides. But if we include everything that influences life on earth, we can also include all celestial bodies. If we are confining the biotic community to earth, then what is our reason for doing so?
We might also consider that the term “community” inherently carries with it boundaries; artificial perhaps, but necessary if we are to concentrate our attention to life on earth, and more specifically, the many “communities” of plant, animal, and human organisms. Though smaller communities might be dependant on larger ones (and vice versa) we might run the risk of infinite regress if or when we include “celestial bodies” when making intimate decisions about much smaller organizations of living things. Where Leopold speaks of “tends”, I’m reminded of the passage on pg. 29 when Jamieson introduces the tendency towards a “sustained, mutually reinforcing cooperation”. At what point, and to what degree is human manipulation a good idea: and how pervasive of a species are humans?
I have a similar question as Chris's, which is where do we draw the line? Things such as the moon and the sun create and sustain life on earth, therefore are they considered part of the biotic community? I know the moon and the sun aren't living creatures, but they are extremely important for things that are. The magnetic and gravitational forces, like Chris says, are very important too and the biotic community would cease to exist with out them. So how to we know when to draw the line?
The term “tends” might lead to a consequentialist view; but it is difficult to determine precisely what Leopold means by this usage. I think it is predictable, by our human nature thus far, that utilitarian objectives might not utilize ethical means in obtaining end results; and if means (the process by which we achieve things) do not inherently possess moral value it is difficult to argue that ends justify means. But Leopold might also be suggesting a deontological view of duty and obligation when referencing “tends”. I think the key here is the examination of each act and subsequent steps towards ends. Perhaps
a combination of all three is suggested by Leopold whereas our character and decision making has its basis in virtue theory, while compromises are made between consequentialism and deontology to obtain desired results with as little harm to our moral character and surrounding environment.
If we were to speak of the College community, it would be pretty easy to say who was included and who not, despite the borderline cases, and despite the many ways in which the college depends on things outside it (and nonliving things within it). The idea of a biotic community is no more problematic than this, I think.
Including the entire universe would not be a bad idea when debating about what the biotic community really consists of. Although the biotic community involves independent organisms inhabiting and interacting in the same areas, it would be interesting to say that the solar system consists of interacting organisms. The problem in drawing the line is the idea that the planets are not alive, therefore we need to look more closely at what is actually alive and interactive.
Post a Comment