If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
ah, I see... Well, in my case, the frame work of such a meta-narrative is very loose, as I do not care to bring order to all my ideas and experiences (at least for the time being).
I'd rather not ever bring complete order to my ideas... no mystery...
"Taylor’s aim in "Respect for Nature" is to develop a theory of environmental ethics as an attempt to establish the rational grounds for a system of moral principles by which human treatment of natural ecosystems and their biotic communities ought to be guided. The subject of concern in this attempt is the place of human civilization in the natural world."
He's put together a logical, and coherent, ethic (that I think could be relevant to many other ethics subjects) that sets up a way to adjudicate between competing rights claims, based on a needs hierarchy. I'd challenge anyone who has studied logic to find many flaws with that book.
Basic life-needs trump wants, in general... (e.g., needs of individuals of non-human species habitat trump wants of individual humans for a shopping mall.) His book is a VERY well done work. I have few criticisms (logically or ethically) with this kind of ethical system. I'll find the 'cliff notes'...
"Taylor’s aim in "Respect for Nature" is to develop a theory of environmental ethics as an attempt to establish the rational grounds for a system of moral principles by which human treatment of natural ecosystems and their biotic communities ought to be guided. The subject of concern in this attempt is the place of human civilization in the natural world."
He's put together a logical, and coherent, ethic (that I think could be relevant to many other ethics subjects) that sets up a way to adjudicate between competing rights claims, based on a needs hierarchy. I'd challenge anyone who has studied logic to find many flaws with that book.
Basic life-needs trump wants, in general... (e.g., needs of individuals of non-human species habitat trump wants of individual humans for a shopping mall.) His book is a VERY well done work. I have few criticisms (logically or ethically) with this kind of ethical system. I'll find the 'cliff notes'...
Observe the buzz words in yet another mediocre herd philosophy: "ethics"; "logical"; "rational"; "moral"; "environmental"; "natural".
By the way, can you elaborate what you meant here as I had trouble deciphering (yet again) your order of words and phrases: "needs of individuals of non-human species habitat trump wants of individual humans for a shopping mall."
Comment