tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24992235.post6418424075363879459..comments2024-03-11T05:59:48.984-05:00Comments on Costanza Book Club: Environmentalism and Religion: "the child is father of the man"Pacifist Vikinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630996018868040440noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24992235.post-52340082754282353572009-05-04T13:56:00.000-05:002009-05-04T13:56:00.000-05:00Re-reading my post, it strikes me the tone does im...Re-reading my post, it strikes me the tone does imply Christianity is responsible for environmental devastation. That seems distorted, as the real (as opposed to ideological) negative impact on the environment is a result of scientific and technological "progress." Environmental damage is one of the side effects of this progress (which is beneficial in thousands of ways).<br /><br />I'm reminded of a passage from Terry Eagleton "On the horrors that science and technology have wreaked on humanity:" "the Apocalypse is far more likely to be the product of them than the work of religion. Swap you the Inquisition for chemical warfare."<br /><br />http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.htmlpacifist vikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639283781758286098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24992235.post-59631269882287381612009-05-03T18:36:00.000-05:002009-05-03T18:36:00.000-05:00Oh yes, I would be the first to suggest that Weste...Oh yes, I would be the first to suggest that Western secular humanism grew out of the Judeo-Christian traditions (though I don't have much to support that assertion at this point). And I would agree that culture can certainly regulate our use of animals and gives us ideas about what animals are. But we are animals ourselves and have not lost the instinct to put whatever we think might enhance our survival, including social and even metaphysical survival, first. I think that is our baseline, and we probably stray from it less often than we would like to admit. If there is something that sets us apart from other animals it is our (occasional!) questioning of that ethic.<br /><br />Thanks for those article suggestions, they look very interesting. I'll look them up.Sylviahttp://philosophia.typepad.com/sisterearth/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24992235.post-47426063370188850102009-05-03T17:31:00.000-05:002009-05-03T17:31:00.000-05:00Oh, yes, I shouldn't come off as if I'm "blaming" ...Oh, yes, I shouldn't come off as if I'm "blaming" Christianity. I'm only trying to suggest that many "rational" secular ideas didn't develop out of nothing, but emerged from history, a history of ideas that was often very wrapped up in religion (that goes for many ideas I consider good, too).<br /><br />I would say, though, that treatment of animals is a "product of culture." That cultures allow the use of animals may be universal, but culture determines which animals are used (or forbidden), how the animals are used, etc. There are many examples I could cite that make it appear that the particular way particular animals are used is rather arbitrary.<br /><br />A side note on the topic at hand, I've read a few articles on Jewish ethics on animals (specifically Lisa Kemmerer's "Jewish Ethics and Nonhuman Animals" and Rabbi Dr. J. David Bleich's "Judaism and Animal Experimentation") that suggest Jewish tradition and law entails an ethical approach to animals.pacifist vikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639283781758286098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24992235.post-51742194064236843032009-05-03T15:30:00.000-05:002009-05-03T15:30:00.000-05:00By the way, that was me, I just used a different p...By the way, that was me, I just used a different profile. So many options!Sylviahttp://philosophia.typepad.com/sisterearthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24992235.post-6887792357519097352009-05-03T15:28:00.000-05:002009-05-03T15:28:00.000-05:00I wouldn't blame Christianity since just about eve...I wouldn't blame Christianity since just about every culture and nation on earth kills animals for food and for ceremonial or other uses. It's how we evolved. Even Native Americans, with their sense of close kinship with animals, have no problem killing and eating them. And of course many other species also kill for food and sometimes for other reasons as well. Believing that we may exercise the power of life or death over other animals is hardly a product of culture. In fact it's a wonder that we have any scruple about killing animals at all. Looking at it another way, the Old Testament notion of God-given dominion/stewardship may well have been an attempt to deal with discomfort around "playing god" with nature in the context of the ancient Hebrews' expanding ethical and moral awareness.<br /><br />I would also add that Christianity broke with the Jewish tradition of animal sacrifice (most famously the economic aspects of it), discouraged the eating of meat obtained through pagan sacrifice, and uses only plant products in its rituals. There's also the Catholic tradition of abstaining from meats other than fish on certain days, and general prohibitions on greed and gluttony. Compared to the other monotheistic faiths and many other religious traditions, the actual practice of Christianity is pretty kind to animals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24992235.post-44788335622397921072009-05-03T08:05:00.000-05:002009-05-03T08:05:00.000-05:00Just a note, again from Harold Herzog: "The Cartes...Just a note, again from Harold Herzog: "The Cartesian argument that humans and animals are fundamentally different was persuasive in the seventeenth century. To Descartes, animals were biological machines."<br /><br />It's not to Herzog's purposes, but I think one could go further back to find "the Cartesian argument" was largely a rational justification for what people already believed as an article of faith.pacifist vikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639283781758286098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24992235.post-67016074542819432482009-05-02T23:54:00.000-05:002009-05-02T23:54:00.000-05:00I think that given people are allowed to kill anim...I think that given people are allowed to kill animals for other purposes (food, research) lends itself to the belief that animals can be euthanized to end suffering. Humans, however, are not supposed to kill others or themselves (except for war, of course, or executions), thus euthanasia for humans is viewed as a different matter entirely.<br /><br />I think you have a great insight: in the case of euthanizing animals, both "stewardship and dominion" are not only in play, but "hand in hand" justifications.<br /><br />What I continue to find fascinating is that there is an interplay between the religious and secular view of, well, just about everything. More specifically, that particular secular attitudes didn't develop in a vacuum of pure reason, but grew out of a social and intellectual history that includes religion. Specifically, I think the scientific, "rational" belief that a superior species can exploit an "inferior" species for the sake of scientific knowledge (to the benefit of the superior species) NEVER WOULD HAVE DEVELOPED if not for the previous Christian belief of humankind's dominion over the "lower" species. The distinction between the rational and irrational isn't clean; all our ideas evolved historically.pacifist vikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639283781758286098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24992235.post-32100295594184171162009-05-02T23:32:00.000-05:002009-05-02T23:32:00.000-05:00I was thinking about a sort of reversal of this si...I was thinking about a sort of reversal of this situation this morning. Why is it that it's not only acceptable but often required to euthanize suffering animals, but we don't dare do that to humans? We even go to great lengths to prevent people from freely and consciously ending their own suffering. On the surface it looks like animal suffering ranks higher than human suffering. But I think it is a combination of a sense of stewardship and the belief that either we can override an animal's will to live or that animals have no such will. Stewardship and dominion hand in hand. It's an odd thing.Sylviahttp://philosophia.typepad.com/sisterearth/noreply@blogger.com