- https://keltramposch.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/prompt-number-five/
- https://keltramposch.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/prompt-number-eleven/
Out of the five posts I chose for my final prompt, I chose my earliest post, prompt five (which followed a more animal liberationist position), and my latest post, prompt eleven (an ecological ethicist prospective). After rereading these posts, I have determined that the concept that runs through both of these posts is inherent value. First described by Regan in our fifth prompt, at first I viewed inherent value to be only equally applicable to individuals because they exist on this earth (unknowingly using a holistic view). This view is confirmed and strengthened once I later read arguments for the inherent value of the land—the environment—and how our moral obligations to the land should come before our human community obligations.
In my fifth prompt, I discussed Regan’s theory of inherent value and found it to be a better way of viewing animals than just by their ability to suffer (their emotions—Singer). Regan’s argument was for animal liberation was based off his belief in the inherent value of all species. Regan emphasizes that all individuals (human or not) have this inherent value, and that, “…all possess it equally, and all have an equal right to be treated with respect to be treated in ways that do not reduce them to the statues of things, as if they exist as resource for others”. In other words, Regan believes that the intrinsic value of an individual should be independent of that individuals usefulness to another individual, and as such should result in the equal respect to all living things. After reading his work, I felt that Regan had a great argument for the equal rights of all animals and all people. If all individuals have the same inherent value, than we should not only treat one another with respect, but also treat other non-human species this way too since they are equally morally relevant.
My eleventh prompt was a response to Shawn’s tenth post, and discussed how we both had similar opinions about Callicott’s solution to Aldo Leopold’s land ethic criticism. Callicott argued that we don’t need to abandon our duties to the human community in order to fulfill our moral obligations to the biotic community (holistic ethic) that Leopold describes. Both of us agreed that the ecological systems are more important than the individuals that make up the system. We both saw the inherent value of the biotic community coming before the rights of individuals, and felt that even though basic human needs should be satisfied, they should not result in the exploitation of the biotic community. Even though we recognized the inherent value of the individuals, we could not condone the blatant waste and mistreatment of the environment for our survival. Using a holistic point of view, I argued that, “…the whole needs to be healthy in order for the parts to survive.” Simply put, if we don’t protect the environment, we are only hurting ourselves since we are a part of the environment and are dependent on it, seeing as the interconnectedness of life is crucial to the system’s functioning.
The connection between these two posts is the use of inherent value of either individuals or of the system. Even though Regan argues for the respect of individuals and Callicott and Leopold argue for the respect of the biotic community, the core of both their arguments rests on the “obscure” value that has no natural property to refer to. Intrinsic value is given simply for the fact that a nonliving or living thing is on this earth and is a part of the biosphere.
This link between these posts helped me develop my ecological ethicist position, because I believe that the biotic community to which we are all a part of gives us our value and that it too has value in and of itself. After my fifth prompt, I did not give any consideration toward the land, and focused instead on the individuals and their inherent worth—I wouldn’t have been able to justify sacrificing one individual for the benefit of the land itself. Even though I have previously argued that we are all members of this planet, I did not see the system as having such value itself, but used this fact to humble humanity into seeing that we are not a superior species. After reading holistic arguments, I began to see that the inherent value of the biotic community should come before our moral obligations to individuals, since synergy (combined effort being greater than parts) makes it so that the biotic community made up of all things has the most inherent value. Even though I understand the desire to fulfill our moral obligations to humanity, I believe that we should only do so as long as we keep the biotic community morally relevant in our decisions. Another link between these two posts is that in both, inherent value argues for the discontinuation of, “…reducing them to the status of things, as if they exist as resources for others.” Although Regan intends the “they” in this sentence to be animals and non-human species, I believe my eleventh post ties this idea into not viewing the biotic community as merely a resource here for our use. We are a part of the biotic community—it does not exist for us, we are not it’s superiors.
keltramposch 
Kellyn,
I believe that you have some discrepancies in your philosophical classifications in regard to the statement “I began to see that the inherent value of the biotic community should come before our moral obligations to individuals, since synergy (combined effort being greater than parts) makes it so that the biotic community made up of all things has the most inherent value.” As you alluded to in your previous post, synergy is the ultimate goal of a thriving biotic community. You say yourself; however, that synergy is made from one on one interaction. So even if the end result of synergy is a balanced biotic community, without one on one individual interaction, the foundation of synergy would crumble. Knowing this, I believe that you are indeed an animal liberationist who simply has a holistic view. You are obviously an empathic and compassionate person who respects inherent value in individuals, and judging by what you have written over these past weeks, I do not believe you would really be willing to sacrifice someone/something for the greater good. Maybe if you didn’t need to watch it. Would you kill someone yourself (having to watch it, feel it, smell it hear it) knowing it was for the greater good? Would you chop down a tree if it was for the greater good? If you answered yes to the latter but no to the former, then you consider individual suffering more thank you think.
Your statement “Even though I understand the desire to fulfill our moral obligations to humanity, I believe that we should only do so as long as we keep the biotic community morally relevant in our decisions” shows how you can easily be an animal liberationist who makes individual based choices that respect the environment. Don’t feel that just because you want to see the biotic community thrive means that you are an environmental ethicist, it just means you are a humane, intelligent and respectful person who factors in others (whether sentient or not) when you make individual decisions.
It seems to me like your beliefs are a mix of an ecological ethicist position and an animal liberationist position. The ecological ethicist part is rooted in statements such as “the inherent value of the biotic community should come before our moral obligations to individuals” while your statements on how individual animals have inherent value shows kind of an animal liberationist stance. Would you agree with this?
Right off the bat when I began reading your post I really enjoyed the fact that you picked out one element of the two posts that you picked, inherent value, and expounded upon that element instead of simply explaining how your views have changed between them. It was refreshing to read, and I liked the flow it added to how you made your point. By picking out that one element, it helped connect your views in each post and made the overall effect more cohesive, and also pointed more clearly to how you came to take a more ecological ethics position. I had a really hard time picking out anything I would have done differently in your post, and felt it was a very well rounded piece of writing. The only thing I did not quite understand was when you said “I did not see the system as having such value itself.” Are you referring to ecological ethicism or the biotic community here? However, overall I really liked your work. Good job! 🙂