Reverence
for Our Relationship with Non-human Nature
The
consequence of the modern anthropocentric utilitarian view has been that we
look at nature acquisitively and ask "What's in it for us?" instead
of looking at it contemplatively and asking "What is it?" We might
expect traditional religion to be a countervailing force against the lack of
reverence for nature. But even Christian thought has to a large extent
succumbed to the modern reduction of the non-human world in spite of the Gospel
observation that the Creator cares about every sparrow. The exclusive human-centered attitude of the
enlightenment contrasts sharply with an earlier natural law theory. St. Thomas
Aquinas, for example, stated "God's goodness could not be adequately
represented by one creature alone. God produced many and diverse creatures so
that what was wanting to one in the manifestation of divine goodness might be
supplied by another" The neglect of the
intrinsic goodness of the non-human world coincides with a shallow
understanding of our own inner world. When the outer world is reduced to an
object of quantitative calculation, the human is reduced to a calculator. As economist E. F. Schumacher observed, all
traditional wisdom emphasizes self-knowledge as a condition for knowledge and
the love of others:
The Christian (and other) saints knew
themselves so well that they could “see into” other beings. The idea that St
Francis could communicate with animals, birds, and even flowers, must of course
seem incredible to modern men who have so neglected self-knowledge that they
have difficulty communicating even with their wives.
Farmer
philosopher, Wendell Berry, in describing what he names “the sin of
abstraction" argues that the Devil's work is found not in love of material
things but in a love of quantification. A real lover of the material world
would not sacrifice the natural environment by making profit maximization the
only moral goal; the lover of quantification would. Perhaps we can put a finer
edge on Berry's point by saying that the sin is not quantification but
reductionism that leaves out everything except quantification.
Berry,
in developing a Christian approach to environmental care, cites the Buddhist
notion of right livelihood and contends that Christianity has so far been
inadequate in giving us a sense of right livelihood. One of the reasons, he
argues, stems from the emphasis on other-worldliness. Christianity sees charity
as a gift of God, but Berry points out that we need to learn how to put it into
practice. Speaking from the view point of a farmer he asks; “How can you love
your neighbor if you don’t know how to build or mend a fence, how to keep your
filth out of his water supply, and your poison out of his air?” He gives some
suggestions of right livelihood.
Real charity calls for the study of
agriculture, soil husbandry, engineering, architecture, mining, manufacturing,
transportation, the making of monuments and pictures, songs and stories. It
calls not just for skill but for the study and criticism of skills, because in
all of them a choice must be made: they can be used either charitably or
uncharitably.
It is clear that the
charitable or desirable way to do each of these enhances the good of yourself,
your neighbor, and the land on which all of us depend. To know exactly what the
best way consists of requires careful study and criticism with an eye to the
totality of our good and bad effects, and not just on the one narrow good of
profit-making. We have a moral duty in the consumerist society to be not only
ethical consumers, but also ethical producers.
We
find another sin of logical reduction that leads to moral wrongs in the
all-or-nothing fallacy. Modernism has held that non-humans have no value in
themselves because they are not rational beings with rights. On the opposite
end of the spectrum, a form of environmentalism that mirrors modernism sees
that non-human things have value and concludes they have rights in the literal
sense in which humans have rights, and
further, that all things with rights and values are equal. Dave Foreman, founder of Earth First, argues that the life of a human is not intrinsically
more valuable than the life of a grizzly bear, and that apparent enemies like
malaria are a valuable part of the biotic community.
We
can rant against this and make jokes about it, but our ethical thinking will
advance beyond comical bickering only if we recognize that some things may have
value, but other things have more
value. As James Nash argued after rejecting the all or nothing approaches that
holds that either animals have no value or that they have value equal to
humans. “In contrast, a graded model
claims that all creatures are entitled to ‘moral consideration,’ but not all
have the same ‘moral significance.’”
Nash
attributes value to all forms of life but on an ascending value based on each
organism’s ability to experience and create value. If we can go beyond a
humanistic hedonism we can see that there is a value in all living things. According to environmental ethicist Holmes
Rolston: “Something more than physical causes, even when less than sentience,
is operating within every organism.” [ii] Bio-ethics must be based
on a bio-logic. This means that we need to think from the premise that in every
organism and in every bio-system there is an ontological reality with a
definite order and program that demands respect. This does not mean that we owe
them the same respect that we should show to humans or even to higher animals.
We are not acting wantonly when we put our needs above the needs of other
animals and plants as in eating food or combating disease. But we must
recognize that living things have an intrinsic value that does not depend on
whether they serve human wants and needs.
We cannot live and “do no harm.” But we can strive to minimize harm and
to live with a sense of reverence and gratitude toward the living things that
sustain us.
Ethics
requires us as citizens to support public policy that protects and improves
both the land and the people. Since technology moves constantly the best ideas
as to how to do this will change rapidly. Therefore it would not be appropriate
to speculate on the exact way in which our use of energy ought to change.
Currently it is not clear what will be the best way to power our production of
electricity or our transportation, although it seems clear that we will want
and need sources of power for both of these activities. We might cling to the
current practice of burning massive amounts of fossil fuel including imported
oil until the system breaks down completely. If the ethical analysis presented
in this chapter is correct, then finding and implementing more environmentally
friendly production and use of energy ought to be a priority of the government
of the United States as well as that of all national governments. Since war
contributes so much to pollution and destructive use of resources, along with
the massive destruction of life and the unspeakable grief that it imposes on
populations, avoiding and preventing war remains at the top of ethical
imperatives. The technology for achieving a significant reduction of pollution
as well as independence from foreign oil is available in concept. So far we
have not shown the political will to implement any solution. The 2016 election
may indicate that many Americans do not even consider it a problem
One
task of ethics is to remind us that our consuming as well as our producing
material goods has effects beyond ourselves. We use our purchasing power
ethically by being aware of our impact on ourselves, the producers and the
whole social and natural environment. In our work life we need to discover what
the Buddhists call right livelihood. A
desirable work life leads to greater integrity and integration. We have an unprecedented
capacity for destruction but also an opportunity for building the human and
biotic community. A major ethical mandate for us in the twenty-first century
requires us to develop and live out a philosophical view that combines
scientific and technological know-how with a reverence for our relationships
with each other and with the natural world.
No comments:
Post a Comment