Russow argues against three possible justifications for saying that species matter. THe one that I found I had at one point or another pondered was the second argument given. THe second argument is based around this idea of the "larger scheme of things." People attempt to argue that species matter because they contribute to, or form an essential part of, some other good. From an anthropocentric standpoint, it is claimed that species that are endangered are of concern to us because their difficulties serve as a warning that we have polluted or altered the environment in a way that is potentially dangerous or undesirable for us.
I partially agree with the justification but I also find fault in it. I agree that species matter and that any animal is important because each animal individually and as a species serves a part in our ecosystem. They contribute to biodiversity and serve as various parts of the food chain. And when these animals exists and aren't in danger of going extinct, the balance is kept in nature. And as a side note, from a capitalistic perspective, the economy benefits.
response to: http://parenethical.com/phil149win12/lecture-06prompt-08-ecological-ethics/#comment-307
THe problem I have with the above justification, goes along with Russow's argument. She says that in the case of a subspecies, most benefits could be derived from other varieties of the same species. Essentially, if we are losing a species who is to say that the species was even beneficial to our society in the first place. Maybe a variation of that species would be just as crucial therefore making the loss of one species not as important as proponents of this justification seem to think.
If we truly believed that it was the overall ecosystem that mattered and not individual animals than how can we justify the individualized treatment of human beings? We too, are after all, just animals. We routinely abuse our ecosystem and pick and choose the animals we want to fight to save. If, as this, justification really suggests everything matters on only a grand scale then our laws, customs and morals matter only in a small subsect, such as our own kind, and should not be imposed on other creatures rendering his entire position pointless.
ReplyDeleteI think the argument over whether we find a species to be of value over a similar subspecies depends on what you qualify as being valuable. I believe the main reason people fear the loss of species is that if a species were to go extinct, we lose the potential for a beneficial characteristic and that is more upsetting to us rather than adding another species to the extinct list. We think how could have that species benefited us, rather than how could that species have benefited the environment. For humans it's all about us, not about anything else. There are some people who value the lives of other animals more than their own, but they are few and far between. If the species that are in danger of becoming extinct don't pose any value to us then we have no reason to save them. It's kind of like a popularity contest. It seems to be rather than the most successful species will survive, the most valuable species will survive.
ReplyDelete