At the United Methodist Church on Sunday Nov. 14th, Kathleen Dean Moore and Michael Nelson spoke about their new anthology, "Moral Ground - Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril". Kathleen Moore is a professor of philosophy at Oregon State University and Micheal Nelson is a professor of environmental ethics at Michigan Sate University, as well as the resident philosopher for the Isle Royale Wolf and Moose project (sounds like an interesting gig). You can see where this is headed; they focus on the ethical side of climate change, perhaps a voice that is missing in the public discourse. As such, they are conducting a town hall meeting tour to raise awareness of the issue. Although the meeting was interactive at times, I couldn't tell if it felt any different than a book tour. What's the diff?
The book asks the question: Do we have a moral obligation to take action to protect future generations against environmental destruction? The answer comes in the form of 80 short essays from high profile leaders and thinkers like Barack Obama and the Dali Lama. The book is mainly focused on global climate change, but also umbrellas other destructive environmental forces.
The book asks the question: Do we have a moral obligation to take action to protect future generations against environmental destruction? The answer comes in the form of 80 short essays from high profile leaders and thinkers like Barack Obama and the Dali Lama. The book is mainly focused on global climate change, but also umbrellas other destructive environmental forces.
Michael Nelson started by employing some very compelling rhetoric. What if Aliens were doing this to us? What if extra terrestrials were polluting our rivers, felling our forests, dumping soot into the atmosphere and cause unprecedented global temperature change through industrial combustion? We would probably do a little more than change our lightbulbs to cfls.
Then, Kathleen took a much needed jab at the IPCC with criticism that would have HDNR grad students smarting with vindication. She remarked that scientist provided amazing data that suggests the destructive force of climate change and then nothing happened. The scientists then reorganized their efforts, collaborated their research efforts to a global scale and again, nothing happened. Presently, she remarked, the scientists produce amazing work, fret about their communication skills, and sit back as resistance to climate change fades away. This brings us to the main thesis of their work. We need fact and morality to make change on a global scale. It goes like this:
Factual Premise: Environmental destruction is upon us and will leave future generations impoverished
Moral premise: If I allow this to happen I give up my moral standing
I am now compelled to act.
As you might guess, all of the essays answer in the affirmative: we do have a moral obligation to future generations. The editors arrange the responses into fourteen moral premises. Here they are:
Yes, for the survival of humankind.
Yes, for the sake of the children.
Yes, for the sake of the Earth itself.
Yes, for the sake of all forms of life on the planet.
Yes, to honor our duties of gratitude and reciprocity.
Yes, for the full expression of human virtue.
Yes, because all flourishing is mutual.
Yes, for the stewardship of God’s creation.
Yes, because compassion requires it.
Yes, because justice demands it.
Yes, because the world is beautiful.
Yes, because we love the world.
Yes, to honor and celebrate the Earth and Earth systems.
Yes, because our moral integrity requires us to do what is right.
There were two serious unanswered questions at the end of their presentation.
1) Did anyone respond yes, we have an obligation to future generations, but environmental destruction is not a cause for concern? Surely they must recognize the logical trap behind their question. One can reject the concern over environmental destruction as many public figures with decision making power do this often.
2) If the response to their question is so unanimous in favor of environmental protection, why do we see such continuing degradation? Surely the Earth is not flooded with moral deviants, but with people just trying to do their level best. Kathleen Moore describes the future moral environmental movement akin to woman's suffrage or the civil rights movement, but it is perhaps the disparity, rather than the likeness, of environmental challenges that have mired progress. Instead of marching to gain one central change, like the right to vote, the environmental movement seeks to change a whole suite of practices that range from personal consumption to global policy. Seeking to address the current problems in a new light rather than drumming up dusty examples of change may be more productive.
A final skeptical voice of mine picked up on the rhetoric of luxury within the text of many of the selected readings. The author's, including Moore's own entry, present painful lamentation about the loss of bird and frog song. They cry over the loss of encounters with vivid wildlife somewhere on Cape Cod. These experiences are certainly valuable and legitimate. In fact, anyone who has spent time in wilderness will empathize with these sentiments. But does it represent how the majority of the population interacts with nature? The major source of degradation, at least in contributions to global climate change will come from the developing world. Instead of:
Yes, because we love the world ..... how about
Yes, because I need timber to cook for my family or
Yes, because I need bushmeat to sell to the market or
Yes, because without a good fish catch I will have to move to the city or immigrate to a foreign country.
Overall, the addition of morality into mainstream environmental thought is much needed, but comes with its own risks. Hey, see for yourself below. - AC
Then, Kathleen took a much needed jab at the IPCC with criticism that would have HDNR grad students smarting with vindication. She remarked that scientist provided amazing data that suggests the destructive force of climate change and then nothing happened. The scientists then reorganized their efforts, collaborated their research efforts to a global scale and again, nothing happened. Presently, she remarked, the scientists produce amazing work, fret about their communication skills, and sit back as resistance to climate change fades away. This brings us to the main thesis of their work. We need fact and morality to make change on a global scale. It goes like this:
Factual Premise: Environmental destruction is upon us and will leave future generations impoverished
Moral premise: If I allow this to happen I give up my moral standing
I am now compelled to act.
As you might guess, all of the essays answer in the affirmative: we do have a moral obligation to future generations. The editors arrange the responses into fourteen moral premises. Here they are:
Yes, for the survival of humankind.
Yes, for the sake of the children.
Yes, for the sake of the Earth itself.
Yes, for the sake of all forms of life on the planet.
Yes, to honor our duties of gratitude and reciprocity.
Yes, for the full expression of human virtue.
Yes, because all flourishing is mutual.
Yes, for the stewardship of God’s creation.
Yes, because compassion requires it.
Yes, because justice demands it.
Yes, because the world is beautiful.
Yes, because we love the world.
Yes, to honor and celebrate the Earth and Earth systems.
Yes, because our moral integrity requires us to do what is right.
There were two serious unanswered questions at the end of their presentation.
1) Did anyone respond yes, we have an obligation to future generations, but environmental destruction is not a cause for concern? Surely they must recognize the logical trap behind their question. One can reject the concern over environmental destruction as many public figures with decision making power do this often.
2) If the response to their question is so unanimous in favor of environmental protection, why do we see such continuing degradation? Surely the Earth is not flooded with moral deviants, but with people just trying to do their level best. Kathleen Moore describes the future moral environmental movement akin to woman's suffrage or the civil rights movement, but it is perhaps the disparity, rather than the likeness, of environmental challenges that have mired progress. Instead of marching to gain one central change, like the right to vote, the environmental movement seeks to change a whole suite of practices that range from personal consumption to global policy. Seeking to address the current problems in a new light rather than drumming up dusty examples of change may be more productive.
A final skeptical voice of mine picked up on the rhetoric of luxury within the text of many of the selected readings. The author's, including Moore's own entry, present painful lamentation about the loss of bird and frog song. They cry over the loss of encounters with vivid wildlife somewhere on Cape Cod. These experiences are certainly valuable and legitimate. In fact, anyone who has spent time in wilderness will empathize with these sentiments. But does it represent how the majority of the population interacts with nature? The major source of degradation, at least in contributions to global climate change will come from the developing world. Instead of:
Yes, because we love the world ..... how about
Yes, because I need timber to cook for my family or
Yes, because I need bushmeat to sell to the market or
Yes, because without a good fish catch I will have to move to the city or immigrate to a foreign country.
Overall, the addition of morality into mainstream environmental thought is much needed, but comes with its own risks. Hey, see for yourself below. - AC
No comments:
Post a Comment