FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Philosophy > Ethics and Morality


Ethics and Morality What's right and what's wrong? Discuss issues on ethics, morality, and justice.

Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 01-19-2008, 05:00 PM
Epimetheus's Avatar
Epimetheus Epimetheus is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Urantia
Posts: 983
Blog Entries: 4
Deep Ecology

Deep Ecology has led to a whole new idea in environmental ethics. In this ethic society favors a world view of biospheric egalitarianism meaning that humans live within nature rather than trying to live out side of it. Deep ecology is highly critical of the anthropocentric of the current world and calls for a drastic rethinking of the way society goes about its business removed from the natural world.

Here are a couple of quotes from the interview, "Introduction to Deep Ecology" with Michael E. Zimmerman

Alan: What is "deep ecology?"

Michael: Deep ecology is an environmental movement initiated by a Norwegian philosopher, Arnie Naess, in 1972. He wasn't the first to dream up the idea of a radical change in humanity's relationship to nature, but he coined the term "deep ecology" and helped to give it a theoretical foundation. Deep ecology portrays itself as "deep" because it asks deeper questions about the place of human life, who we are.

Deep ecology is founded on two basic principles: one is a scientific insight into the interrelatedness of all systems of life on Earth, together with the idea that anthropocentrism - human-centeredness - is a misguided way of seeing things. Deep ecologists say that an ecocentric attitude is more consistent with the truth about the nature of life on Earth. Instead of regarding humans as something completely unique or chosen by God, they see us as integral threads in the fabric of life. They believe we need to develop a less dominating and aggressive posture towards the Earth if we and the planet are to survive.

The second component of deep ecology is what Arnie Naess calls the need for human self-realization. Instead of identifying with our egos or our immediate families, we would learn to identify with trees and animals and plants, indeed the whole ecosphere. This would involve a pretty radical change of consciousness, but it would make our behavior more consistent with what science tells us is necessary for the well-being of life on Earth. We just wouldn't do certain things that damage the planet, just as you wouldn't cut off your own finger.
They [deep ecologists] call not for a regression to collective authoritarianism, but for the evolution of a mode of awareness that doesn't lend itself to authoritarianism of any kind.

The Ethics of Deep Ecology according to the Wikipedia:
Proponents of deep ecology believe that the world does not exist as a resource to be freely exploited by humans. The ethics of deep ecology hold that a whole system is superior to any of its parts. They offer an eight-tier platform to elucidate their claims:

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.
4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 01-22-2008, 04:41 PM
QUEST? QUEST? is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: long island n.y.
Posts: 655
I agree, it sounds nice, but there is a problem. Go into a Third World country and try to expound this and you'll be laughed out of the place.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 02:28 PM
Epimetheus's Avatar
Epimetheus Epimetheus is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Urantia
Posts: 983
Blog Entries: 4
Its different in a third world country. The developed world has the means to the end while the third world does not. Think Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Why would someone need self-actualization when their most basic physiological needs cannot be met.
Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mathematicians are in deep trouble for 2 reasons nightdreamer General Philosophy 68 05-27-2008 09:03 PM
NASA to broadcast The Beatles into deep space Epimetheus Politics and World Events 4 02-05-2008 01:51 PM
Colour Is More Than Skin Deep Valkyrie Human Society 2 12-14-2007 09:09 PM
The deep abyss of my mind. pljames The Mind 7 12-28-2006 06:14 AM
God-Subjective & Objective view points dattaswami Religion 6 03-31-2006 05:36 AM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:02 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network