singer's potential

Singer conjures up a very interesting debate in A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation. Singer makes a case for equal consideration among all beings. He believes that the interests of all beings capable of suffering should be worthy of equal consideration. Animals should then have rights based on their ability to suffer. Even further, Singer claims consideration should not be preferential to intelligence. He extends this to the fact that although animals show lower intelligence than most humans, many mentally handicapped humans can show similar lower mental capacities to that of animals. Subsequently, we should not put humans as a whole above animals nor should we give animals any less consideration than mentally handicapped humans.
First of all, I think that Singers arguments are very noteworthy, provocative and thought-provoking. However, unfortunately, he is too radical in some of his claims and too narrowly individualistic to capture and inspire an influential environmental ethic that is needed today. With Singer’s arguments, it seems as though he argues for the individual and not the whole with the idea of equal consideration of each being. However, in our environmental realm now, we must see things in terms of ecosystems and processes. His view of an animal centered philosophy ignores the concept of species as a whole, as we need to pay equal consideration to each being. How do we deal with endangered species? If we are only to consider beings equally, does this mean that we should be considering a fly just as much as a whole species of endangered giant pandas?
Another claim that is a bit extreme that loses an ability to inspire a wide spread environmental ethic is his indifference, or what some might consider lack of respect, to some humans, especially the mentally handicapped. This is a very slippery slope in defining who is a “person.” Additionally, another argument that puts Singer at a disadvantage and loses a strong following is his belief that because animals have the ability to feel pain and pleasure, this then puts them on a plane of moral equivalence with us and of equal consideration.
However, despite these criticisms, Singer provides a very interesting lens to look at animals rights in the environmental ethics realm. But, his strength lies in his ability to draw more on reason than those philosophers, such as Kant, who rely more on abstract principles of duty and obedience than pain and pleasure. Despite these strengths, Singer cannot inspire a true environmental ethic that will be adopted by many until his beliefs become more moderate and kept within the bounds of societal human values as a majority.

Human and Animal Equality

I believe that Kant is wrong in the notion that animals do not have any intrinsic value, but only value because we as humans deem it so. He argues that since we are "rational beings" we hold higher precedence over "lower" creatures.
I find this to be false in that I believe all animal life has equal value to human life. To say that since we are thinking, reasoning beings qualifies us to have some greater importance than animals is not logical reasoning in my opinion. Kant gives the example of an owner who shoots his dog does not fail in his responsibilities to the dog, for it cannot judge, but rather fails in his duty to humanity (by acting cruelly). I do not see the difference in value between the dog and a human in this example. If we as reasoning beings judge that cruelty to animals by humans directly relates to one’s losing or failing humanity then shouldn’t that action of cruelty be stopped? In that sense, there really is no distinction between whether negative actions are directed against humans or animal, only that it results in the same degradation of humanity. I must say that I believe that killing of animals, in a non-sadistic ways is permissible for humans. Not for any reason other than that they provide sources of food, and a means to survival for humans. I do not see this as degrading to humanity in any way as long as it is done in a respectful manner, such as the Native Americans did, which realizes that animal life serves as a cornerstone of human survival.

The Green Kant: Kant's Treatment of Animals

In this article, Wilson upholds Immanuel Kant's view that human beings should not treat non-human animals as their equals because that would cause human status to decline to that of other animals. This view is based on the assumption that there are significant differences between humans and other animals in terms of mental capacity and the ability to reason, in particular, that make humans superior.
I agree with Wilson in that it wouldn't make sense for us to treat other animals the way that we treat each other, not because it would cause our status to decline, but because of the many differences that exist between humans and other animals. For instance, there are in fact differences in intelligence and ways of communicating between humans and other animals that would prevent us from treating them in the exact same way that we treat one another. Even so, I do not think that this should prevent us from giving non-human animals (and other forms of life, such as plants) certain rights for their protection.
Moreover, I do not think that it is necessarily the case that animals are incapable of reasoning. An animal that is targeted as prey by another animal, a predator, can certainly think in such a logical manner that it realizes it is in danger of being killed and must get away from the predator that is pursuing it. Wilson or Kant may respond to this argument by saying that this example simply illustrates a survival instinct that animals possess and that does not constitute reasoning. However, whether one considers this animal's response to being in danger an instinct or not, it fits the definition of the word reason. Anyway, humans as well as other animals are driven by many instincts, such as the instinct to eat and drink in order to survive. Humans and other animals are more alike than Wilson and Kant would like to believe.
There are differences between human beings and other animals that might lead one to believe that we are actually the inferior species, such as the fact that four-legged animals are able to run at much faster speeds than we can. Interestingly, Wilson does not acknowledge such differences in her article. Despite the existence of these differences, which Wilson is most likely aware of, she does not seem to believe that any other animal species is superior to human beings.

Only Rational Beings Have Moral Worth

The claim Kant makes that, “Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humans” has a lot of underlying ideas that I think are true. He bases his piece on this statement and develops it into a way that I think makes beautiful sense. Although I do not condone acts of violence towards animals or think they are worthless, I do feel they are inferior to humans and should not be given the same rights as humans. I don’t think we should use them however we want, but I definitely don’t think they should be regarded as part of society or treated as equal to humans. Animals simply are not equal to humans. They are very different and although they, in some ways, can have humanistic qualities (i.e. take care of their young, or feel pain and suffering), they are not humans. As Wilson points out in the next piece, animals simply can’t reason or decide between two behaviors after discussing these two choices with another animal. Sure, animals make decisions, I’m not saying that they have no ability to make a rational decision, I just think that they can’t reason between two rational decisions and choose the better one. For this they are not equal to humans.
To further the point that we have certain duties to animals because we correspond those duties to humans, I turn to Michael Vick. Why was he put in jail? Why did he lose millions of dollars in endorsement deals and have to pay fines? Was it because people were mad that he violated the rights of the dogs? Some were, but I don’t think it’s that the dog’s actual rights were violated, since they don’t have any rights within our society. But more, I think that it is the fact that it scared people. For our society to hear about the numbers of dogs he had in his possession that were either hurt or dead, scared people. I think that’s because people unconsciously applied Kant’s ideas that the way we treat animals reflects the way we would treat humans. Sure Michael Vick would probably not have committed murder later in life, but it does say something about him as a person and about his morals. I think that is the big issue here. It’s not that animals have rights and should be treated as equal to human. It’s that humans should have enough dignity and love for other creatures to not want to harm them for their own selfish purpose. Wilson made the following statement at the end of her piece that I think makes my point perfectly. She says that we should be motivated to keep from treating animals cruelly out of respect and because we know our dignity as a human being is as stake in our treatment of animals.

Animal Cruelty: A Choice or An Obligation?

I am in support of Holly L. Wilson’s argument that in order to prevent animal cruelty, we must embrace the connection between cruelty of animals and its connection to humans. The connection between both cruelties allows humanity to reflect on its actions and cause a positive change on both treatments. This is in contrast to Singer’s proposition of establishing equal consideration of human and animal suffering, and in essence, the equality of all species.


Without animals as a separate entity from humans, the judgment of morality and human actions, both to humans, and outwards to animals lack a contrast (Wilson 71). Currently, human beings can observe and make judgment on the treatment of animals and whether it is cruel or not. They can then adjust their actions accordingly such as becoming a vegetarian or protesting against factory farms which could translate in a similar compassion shown to fellow humans (Wilson 67).


If this judgment were to be replaced by a law, then human beings would lack the choice of abstaining from animal-cruelty (Wilson 71). Singer’s method of enforcing laws for animal rights only reforms our actions towards animals, while Wilson’s interpretation of Kant’s idea of animal-treatment would alter our actions towards animals and ourselves (Wilson 71). I consider Kant’s method more expansive and malleable than Singer’s method because it does not rely on complete societal compliance or the erasure of the popular concept of human dignity. If humans were to value the treatment of animals by their own volition instead of being forced to by law, then that compassion might translate inwardly, thereby creating a heartier effect than just more law-abiding citizens.

Fair Treatment

Peter Singer claims that animals should be treated as equals because their capacity to suffer is just as great as a human’s. Most humans of being are speciesists, according to Singer, because we consider the well-being of humans to be of greater importance than the well being of other species. He argues that experimenting upon an animal simply because it lacks intelligence is as repulsive as if we were to experiment on someone with a mental deficit. We must view animals as our equals and recognize that they have just as much of a right to life free from needless suffering as we do. While I disagree with the claim that animals should be viewed as equal to human beings, I feel strongly that animals should have the right to not be exposed to needless suffering. Animals have little control over their lives and, as a result, we as humans need to realize it is our responsibility to carefully consider our usage of them. While I believe that killing an animal for the purpose of food is justified, I have strong objections to those animals being housed in cramped metal stalls for their entire existence before they are slaughtered. I agree with Singer that the cruelty which we expose animals to is often worse than the killing of them. To us they are a profitable commodity not living beings. This mentality is one which I feel is completely unjust. Animals are beings who feel things such as fear and pain just as strongly as humans. They are complex creatures who deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. While we may choose to use animals for our own purposes, we need to do so while still considering the well-being of that animal. This does not mean that animals should be given equal rights as Singer suggests, but I believe we do need to follow a type of moral code when dealing with the treatment of animals. No one should be able to kill an animal without just cause and if that animal must be killed, it should be performed as humanely as possible. They deserve to live lives that are free from needless suffering. As Immanuel Kant claims, the way in which we choose to treat animals says a great deal about how we choose to treat other human beings.

I'm Confused...

Kant’s piece was a hard read for me. Although it was only a few pages short, Kant’s writing was confusing and strangely worded. When I finally understood what he was talking about, I enjoyed playing around with the ideas of “means”, “springs” and “motives” in my head, but when I looked at Kant’s definitions again, they all seemed to be describing the same thing (or being.)

I understood “means” to be the ground of possibility of action, so that could be a person named James. I understood the “springs” to be: The subject ground of the desire, so if Julia were after James as a boyfriend, James would be the “means” and the “spring?” I understood “motives” to be: the objective ground of the violation, so what would be the motive in James and Julia’s case? Company? If someone could explain this to me, I would greatly appreciate it.

I also had a hard time understanding what Kant meant when he kept talking about “ends.” I have a hard time thinking of beings as “ends” because I think of “an end” as a destination, not a being. The only time I understood what he meant by “ends” was when he said “So act as to treat humanity whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end-withal, never as a means only.” I understood this to mean: don’t use people to get to things.

The one thing I really agree with from Kant’s piece was “We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” If I’m understanding this correctly, in judging a man by his treatment of animals, are we using animals as “means” and not “ends?” I find myself judging people very harshly when I suspect they don't treat animals with the respect I believe they deserve.

Practicle Application of a Moral value for Animals

After reading Wilson’s understanding of the Kantian understanding of animal rights, I found myself overwhelmingly agreeing with Kants position. As Kant notes there must be a distinction between humans and animals. In his distinction I especially agree with the notion that the free will of humans trumps the will of animals. Although both humans and animals have a choice, we possess a volitional consciousness which enables us to willfully recognize why we do things. I believe that since we naturally possess the ability to understand our role in our environment, we have a position of natural dominance. When it came to Wilsons idea of our responsibility to animals, I was unsure of the ability to practically apply it.
Wilson does not satisfy my question of how this appeal to humanity within each individual can become both percolated through society, and how even such an appeal would result in a sufficient outcome. Taking our nation into consideration we have many different religious and consequently moral beliefs which dictate the decisions of one in their everyday life. How does she intend to generate this appeal to humanity within each person if there is no social repercussion for disregarding this respect for humanity? Further still, how can social repercussions be handed down if animals do not have some sort of rights. I think it would be hard to distinguish between moral rights and legal rights given the close relation our laws have with our moral standard. In recent news, Micheal Vick was sent to prison for two years for his role in a dog fighting ring. Why I believe that sentence was excessive, would Kant think the same thing? By saying that animals do not have the same moral clout as humans do, how can Vick have received such a sentence while another NFL star killed a human in a DUI crash receiving a smaller sentence. In the case of Vicks NFL peer, he settled out of court for a large sum of money. I think that this situation exemplifies the way in which raising the moral status of animals would serve to diminish the moral status of humans. How can we understand the moral value of animals if our moral dealings between humans are not entirely black and white?

Separator post

The posts above concern the readings for Sept. 10 by Kant, Wilson, and Singer.

Satyagraha for Conservation

Dwivedi proposition of a satyagraha for conservation, a movement towards a more Hindu lifestyle, though having the ability to potentially help with the current ecological problems does not take into account several factors. The first point that should be noted is that even in India's past, when the entire country was Hindu and there had been no foreign culture introduced yet, there were people who had lavish palaces, armies of merchants, brothels, and went about business in a cut throat manner. Regardless of the religion in a given area nearly every culture around the world has had people who exploited something, or who were always looking for ways to get one up on everyone else. Though the caste might have had positive effects for the environment, within each caste there was still competition. War was not a foreign concept to India, nor were merchants who horded massive amounts of wealth. It seems almost naive to assume one religion has the power where others do not.

Aside from the competition within each caste, the caste system itself left hundreds of thousands of people in ill health, poverty, and without personal freedoms. Something like the caste system would have a hard time being imposed again, and if it somehow was accomplished you have no promise of the environment improving, only the degradation of peoples' homes, and most likely physical health.

I agree with Dwivedi in that religion can play a key factor (religions guide the lives of millions of people), but there are just so many other factors at play that one cannot simply look at this with only one type of lens. With Dwivedi it's not only a religious lens though, it's a Hindu lens, something that in many peoples' eyes will just cause more problems.

Gaining Back Respect for Nature

Lily De Silva states that much of environmental destruction occurring in India has much to do with the influences of other cultures and religions that have been thrust upon the area over that past centuries. Morals have morphed and changed, placing economic values about those such as wonder, awe, and appreciation for the natural and unknown. It seems that we are focusing on short-term goals for the future instead of long-term, supporting De Silva's point that "people have come to worry about their survival and freedom; hence, respect for nature gets displaced by economic factors" (317). But, what society needs to realize is that our ultimate survival depends upon nature's survival. It's constant mistreatment will lead to our demise...but not just on the scale of a single country like India. But this movement she mentions that could be developed and spread, based upon "spiritual-guidance" and acknowledging our errors (especially from in the West), seems too hopeful in that the spiritual guidance stemming from Hinduism does not agree with other religions (and other people throughout the world). She mentioned herself that other religions, such as Christianity have long reached their shores...and have a definite disagreement with how nature is viewed and our relationship with the environment. To convince others to believe in Hindu teachings does not just take persuading on the part of whats best for nature and the environment, but you have to be able to sway them away from a religion they have grown up and or just strongly believe in-this may be something people are not willing to give up, whether or not its whats best for the health of the earth. As noted before, we think short-term and selfishly.

Satyagraha for Conservation: A Hindu View

I believe like the author, Dwivedi, that by reintroducing the ancient educational system which taught respect for nature and reasons for its preservation, the environmental problems in India might very well improve. However, I think that it could be argued that there is a fear that by reinstating the ancient educational system, they open the door to reinstate and reinforce the brutally oppressive caste system. Putting a caste system back in place may indeed help the environment by emphasizing and increasing sustainable consumption and development. Despite the potential environmental benefits, many people would not want to do anything that might strengthen the caste system and would therefore reject the ancient educational system. I feel that many people would resist anything that they would perceive as an attempt to force them into arbitrary castes, because they are well aware that in this system the people’s desires and hopes have always basically been completely disregarded. This is because in the caste system, there is no hope for social mobility or personal advancement through hard work. Environmental ethics and working towards environmental sustainability is an extremely important issue. Indeed, it is perhaps the great challenge of our time and could ultimately define our generation. However, attempts to protect and preserve the environment, however effective and well-intentioned they may be, have to be balanced with a concern for human rights. Taking away liberty and hope from people through arbitrarily forcing them into castes that do not allow for any personal advancement or success does not accomplish this balance.

Changing Lifestyles not Religions

In Lily De Silva’s article, “The Buddhist Attitude Towards Nature” she explains that the lifestyle and teachings of morality, non-violence, and respect of Buddhism lend itself perfectly to be the answer to the question of how to fix our environment after it has been in crisis for so long. I agree with Silva’s that Buddhist teachings do harbor a kinder and gentler mind-set toward all things in nature from plants to animals to even the basics of the air we breathe. Its teachings on karma, rebirth and the interdependence of man and nature make a person’s relationship with nature one that the world should be interested in adopting while we try to mend what he have so clearly broken.

However, while I agree that these teachings and ideas coincide with our efforts to save the earth not everything she mentioned had to be taken to the degree that she did. The Buddhist way of life is one people should strive to live up to, however it seemed that she was trying to convert the world to adopt not only the moral mindset of this religion in regards to nature but the entire religion itself. Her repeated belief that mans immorality is directly responsible for the deterioration of this earth can easily be refuted by anyone outside this religious belief.

I think it would have been a stronger argument to put forth the ideals of the religion as a way to base one’s life off of but not necessarily taking on the entire religious way of life and beliefs. Statements like, “Man has to understand that pollution in the environment has been caused because there has been psychological pollution within himself” makes me think that she is merely trying a new angle to be evangelical. I understand her theory, that if we change the attitudes within ourselves about greed and the like than we will change our attitude toward greed in the ecologic sense. Yet, this change within us does not have to include a change of religious practice to do so.

Our Obligation to Environmental Protection

O.P. Dwivdei argues, “A synthesis of the key concepts and precepts from each of [the world religions] pertaining to conservation could become a foundation for a global environmental ethic” (Dwivedi 311). Whether we look at his view or another which proposes simply following the environmental ethics of a single religion, it seems that this type of work should be unnecessary for the purpose of motivating action towards sustainability. I offer challenges to the view that religious considerations are the most viable option for motivating people to act in an environmentally responsible way.

In order to solve the environmental crisis we need not incorporate religious views, whether they concern nature’s status as “a sign of the Creator” (Samarrai 324) or the intrinsic value of nature. That is to say, while religions, either individually or in conjunction with one another, might be able to motivate individuals to pursue the goal of environmental sustainability, it does not seem that the motivation needs to be religious in kind. Operating from outside of the religious realm, according to Segun Ogungbemi, it seems that we are already obligated. This obligation comes from what he calls quite simply, “conventional morality”, and it can be stated as “not taking more than you need from nature” (Ogungbemi 331).

Ogungbemi later provides us with yet another reason to promote environmental awareness and responsibility by “reformulat[ing]” our already discussed obligation. He aruges, because we are “Invariably endangering our existence” when we exploit the environment (Ogungbemi 337), (“our” refers to us as well as future generations) we are already obligated to act in an environmentally sustainable fashion based simply upon these considerations.

Also consider the words of Sociologist Ramachandra Guha in his discussion of the issue of nature’s intrinsic or extrinsic worth. For no matter which side of this discussion we find ourselves arguing for, it seems that we will not be motivated to act differently for either answer. It seems reasonable to conclude from this that if we believe ourselves to have an absolute duty to protect the environment, no matter what the basis for this belief, we will have just as much motivation to act, and it is for this reason that in the case of environmental protection, religion should not be able to provide us with any greater motivation toward action than our already existent moral knowledge.

Buddha’s teachings inspire environmental awareness

I whole heartedly agree with Lily De Silva’s interpretation of Buddhism. Buddhism not only states that humans should revere plants and animals with respect, but also includes the belief that nothing remains stagnant on Earth. As we now know that processes on earth such as continental drift, evolution and even migration patterns are not stagnant, it appears that Gautama Buddha may have been ahead of his time. Saying nothing is stagnant may, at some level, appear to create an excuse for humans to destroy the environment, but the teachings of Buddha go on to say that “If and when mankind realizes that large scale devastation has taken place as a result of moral degradation, a change of heart takes place among the few surviving human beings.” This can be interpreted that humans will leave their environment in ruin only to learn what they did and then make all necessary corrections to make sure it doesn’t occur again. We are at that threshold and we have begun to learn about our impact on the environment. The next stage is to overcome it, a stance that humans have already begun to take. Green cars, using solar power in place of electrical energy, and removing CFC’s from aerosols are all improvements that are beginning to become common practice. Gautama Buddha existed over 2.5 millennia ago, yet his teachings and views are just becoming full circle. We humans have fulfilled the first two thirds of his criteria without a doubt, but, as humans, we will now face our most difficult challenge. Make right that which we have made wrong. As humans we are defined by our ability to get up after being knocked down. This is what Buddha believes human kind will do, and from the achievements this race has accomplished, Buddha’s teachings are obtainable.

The Role of Spirituality in the Environmental Movement

I find Dwivedi’s proposition of a role for religion in environmental conservation and protection to be appealing, and I believe that there are additional reasons for developing an environmental ethic with global spirituality as its core. I would, however, suggest that spirituality, rather than religion, be named the foundation of this ethic. To call this environmental ethic religion-based may cause agnostics, governments, and secular institutions to turn away out of bias before even considering the principles. Also, differing interpretations of ancient texts could cause dispute, whereas taking the ethic directly from spirituality would sidestep these disagreements. I agree with Dwivedi that a set of moral values and rules, as may be found in religion, ought to play a role here, but I also posit that spiritual bankruptcy is at the root of environmental destruction, and so spirituality offers hope of change—I believe that spirituality would be a sufficient cause of a change in the way that humans treat the environment. Religion is a way of life, and one can be religious with or without being spiritual; spirituality is a connection to a power greater than oneself, anything or anyone at all. If one looks, one may find principles of the benevolent treatment of the environment embedded in different religious texts; most religions base their ideas regarding the way that life should be lived upon spirituality, so ideas of living in harmony with the environment seem ultimately to originate from spirituality. If one believes that there exists something greater than oneself, one ought to develop humility. Any human is not God above all others, so one with spirituality would not act as such, with a domineering attitude towards even nature. From spirituality comes a certain attitude, mentality, and way of thought that is complementary to the environmental movement; from thought follows behavior, so spirituality would foster actions compatible with this movement. Currently, knowledge of the harm being done to the environment is widespread. Spirituality is peaceful, and to be at peace is to live mindfully and not wish harm upon anything or anyone else. If one felt a connection to a force greater than oneself, then one would feel a connection to all things—from this a sense of unity and oneness would ensue. In believing that one was a part of earth, and that things were connected in some way or another, one would feel a sense of compassionate respect for all living things, and would treat them conscientiously.

Separator post

The posts above concern the readings for Sept. 8 by Dwivedi, De Silva, Izzi Deen, Ogungbemi, and Guha.

While reading what Ogungbemi had to say about the African culture’s attitude towards nature, I found myself thinking almost exactly what was said and also found that I was asking the same questions. How do we know much we really need so we don’t take any more than that? Who is the one who judges how much that is? And if people are taking more than they need, what will be their penalty? Ogungbemi says there are three basic elements in the ethics of nature- relatedness; reason, experience, and the will with reason being the guiding force among them. I can agree with what he’s saying but I can also disagree. While I think that reason is a strong force, I also think that the will is just as equal or even more of a force. With reason, you can look at situations and decide what best to do for yourself, but without the will to follow through the actions made by your decision through reason, you cannot hope to get ahead and achieve your goals. In this text, it seemed like the African culture’s goal is to become more sustainable and to be able to co- exist with nature and treat it with concern for it’s worth. But then we are faced again with the problem of finding out the true value of the land that we count on so much for our daily lives. I am sure that someday we will be able to find out this true value of the land and find a way to use it without taking too much of it away from our future generations.

A criticism of Lynn White's solution to the ecological crisis

Lynn White’s ideas are interesting in that to me it also appears that Christian ideas have permeated through our society, however to blame Christianity as root of the ecological crisis and to say that “the remedy must also be essentially religious” seems hard to believe possible. Even if we were able to alter the world’s values to be more ecological through some sort of new view of what the religion means would it not just be a way to manipulate the religion as a means to an end? I am not convinced that such manipulation is a worthwhile way to save the planet; if humanity fails to grasp the value of nature and that the harmful effects we have on nature affect us than do we truly deserve such a planet? I feel that the true root cause of the ecological crisis has much more to deal with human nature (competitiveness, which Lynn White points to unknowingly when he says “Despite Darwin, we are not, in our hearts, part of the natural process”). I also believe that ignorance plays a role in the crisis, though sometimes I have a difficult time believe this because it seems so obvious that the amount of material wealth we are collecting not only in our own belongings but in our infrastructure is having a harmful effect on the planet; however I do believe that even if we lose such ignorance it is hard to figure out anything to do that will have a large effect because we feel largely trapped within our societal context. Another problem is simply the huge number of human beings on the planet, which cannot be fixed through a reinterpretation of scripture. I do not agree with White’s statement that a reinterpretation of religious values will be able to fix these problems. White wrote the article in 1967, while the Vatican may be “going green” it seems there has been little religious progress on the issue of environmentalism and personally I believe that the answers to the ecological crisis will not come from religion but perhaps it will come through such things as a loss of ignorance about what effects we have on the planet and an actual willingness as an individual to take steps to help the planet even though it might mean sacrifice while others are still abusing resources.

I agree with Moncrief's beliefs on The Present American Scene, stating that our current situation falls under three main causants: an absence of personal moral direction about natural resource treatment, an inablility of social institutions to make adjustments to this stress, and an unwavering trust and faith in technology.

I believe he is right in saying it's not just religious, nor political, technological, or social factors. It's such a complex blend, that to undo and change our societys' mindset may make this a task not soon completed.

He makes a good point about much of our problems stemming from America's "ignorance" as far as environmental resources and inahabitants are concerned. Ignorance is bliss afterall. He makes a point to note that we are not efficient in taking account of actual price of our actions both economically and environmentally. Perhaps though, he could add more support to his argument by going into some detail about our inability to attain an agreed upon way to measure the use and misuse of natural resources. We have such a clouded, grayed idea of the worth and value of the environment. It's not just something occurring in the American Scene either. It's a worldwide happening that affects not only our measuring abilities but other countrys' too. If we all have differing views, then the chance for success for ayone, let alone the US, to actually change the present behaviors and stop turning a blind eye to environmental impacts is very slim. Who decides what is more important as far as an economic hit for a company, or a dangerous threat to the survival of a rare species that hardly any common person has heard of, knows about, or cares about?

We Are No Longer a Part of Nature

I view myself as a more spiritual person than religious person, and sometimes I find religion to be a little overbearing and selfish on the side of human beings. I mean, who said that humans are superior to all animals and nature? We claim that God had relayed this information, and that “he” speaks to us and “created us in his image” but who told us that? Our ancestors, and theirs before them? What if it’s like the game “whisper down the alley” and by the time it gets to each generation, the message is already altered and changed to favor those in power?

It truly irks me to think of all the damage humans have done to the earth that we share with so many other creatures and beings. Lynn White’s section on “Medieval View of Man and Nature” made me really think about how humans simply use everything in sight to their advantage, and if other species are harmed by it, so be it. White describes how the tilling of land changed over the years as more efficient methods were discovered and used, and when White states: “Formally man had been a part of nature; now he was the exploiter of nature” it stirred up my own frustrated emotions about how humans are raping the earth everyday with our constant deforestation, pollution, overuse of fuels, raw materials, and daily ignorance of our effects upon nature. As Moncrief put it in the beginning of his article “One hundred years ago at almost any location in the United States, potable drinking water was no further away than the closest brook or stream. Today there are hardly any streams in the United States…that can safely satisfy a human thirst without chemical treatment.”

We are no longer part of nature when we think or believe that we are above it, and when we treat it the way we currently do.

Moncrief Dances Around the Real Culprit

Moncrief’s critique of Lynn White’s argument that the tradition of Judeo-Christian values in science are to blame for the current ecological crisis rests upon expanding the blame to such other social institutions as democracy, urbanization, and capitalism. Moncrief is closer to a complete and compelling argument than White, but fails to articulate clearly how capitalism plays such a sinister role in environmental degradation. He briefly mentions the industrial development of Europe and North America, attributing it vaguely to capitalism. Later he articulates three characteristics of a society ill-equipped to deal with ecological crisis that, upon closer inspection, reflect the capitalistic nature of that society. If he clarified this connection, he could make a much stronger argument by reducing number of vague culprits he names and focusing his attention on articulating one.

Moncrief lists the first characteristic as a loss of moral direction. He argues that the modern individual tends to “maximize self-interests” and attempt to “shift… costs to society to promote individual ends.” These are clear characteristics of a capitalist system, which embraces private ownership in order to gain profit for an individual through the immoral exploitation of labor and natural resources. Even in economics, shifting costs to society as a whole “externalizes” that cost away from the individual, and is not accounted for anywhere else.

His second characteristic he calls “institutional inadequacies.” He discusses the fact that air and water, along with other natural resources in the “commons” are considered free commodities, and as such government finds it difficult to regulate them. The struggle to commoditize natural things, which were not created within a market and thus cannot be true commodities, has haunted capitalism since its inception, but has most likely been intentionally unsolved. The ability to have an owner-less air or water enables capital to exploit them without fear of repercussion. In a world of private property, what cannot be owned can be used.

Lastly, Moncrief laments our society’s unyielding faith in technology. Technology must be recognized for what it is. Technology exists only because those with the money to fund it can create it, and only do in order to reap profit in a capitalist system. To say that our faith in technology will doom us is incomplete: our faith in the capitalist system that created both technology and environmental catastrophe is the true harbinger of peril.

Capitalism as a Culprit

The current state of the environment can be attributed to much more than Judeo-Christian belief systems. Moncrief makes valid points in favor of this argument. The environmental crisis is something that affects nations all over the world and not all of these nations follow or have a history of Judeo-Christian traditions. There are larger, more encompassing forces at work. For example, capitalist economies are dominant globally and their goals of maximizing profit while minimizing costs leave no room for concern about the environment. However, blame cannot be placed entirely upon large corporations. They would not exist if they didn’t have consumer support. We as consumers put our faith in the technology and products that have become a huge part of our lives and do not see the extent of the damage they cause. People are often too wrapped up in technological and economic advancement. Even those nations still developing or not a part of the capitalist system are focused on getting ahead. As third world nations develop further the problems will only worsen; resources will be stretched even thinner. These issues are not dependent on the religious or moral threads within a culture. Modifying a Judeo-Christian view that man is above nature will not halt technological and economic progress of our or other nations.

How the individual plays into the Environmental Crisis

Lewis Moncrief does a great job of examining the reasons why cultural effects are the main issue behind the environmental crisis the world faces. His statements about the misallocation of resources and downright irresponsibility on the behalf of world powers (i.e. major governments) illustrates well a number of the major causes of the current environmental issues at hand. I believe however that he doesn’t adequately investigate the more intimate side of how these cultural affects are playing a substantial role in our current situation. What I mean by this is Moncrief focuses on the large-scale idea that government mistakes have caused widespread environmental crisis, yet fails to examine how this has had a “trickle down” effect on individuals living in that society.
Today we live in a fast paced, materialistic society where we think little about most of the consequences of our actions. This, while in itself being a consequence of the cultural issues Moncrief talks about, has pushed us as a society into a “bigger/more is better” style of living. We drive faster cars, build bigger houses, and buy more clothes all the while spending huge amounts of natural resources whilst never questioning the long-term consequences of such a lifestyle. It is a combination of irresponsibility, as well as downright obliviousness on the part of the average person living in America. In the past 100 years America has had access to huge amounts of natural resources, so much so that the general public has taken the existence of such resources as granted. While government, as Moncrief explains, has fumbled on the issue of responsibly managing natural resources (as well as educating the people how to do so on a smaller level), the general public is just as guilty in creating this environmental crisis through their own ignorance.

Overview of Lynn White

In the beginning of Genesis, God instructs Adam and Eve to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it… have dominion over …every living thing that moveth upon the earth." This controlling attitude towards the natural world fuels White’s surmise that Christianity should take some responsibility for the current destructive environmental mess.

White lays this environmental and ecological crisis at the feet of Christianity claiming that the human race has been programmed since the beginning of time, through biblical readings and claims, to have dominance over the Earth. From the earliest plow which “attacked the land with such violence” to the industrial revolution; mankind has dominated over the natural world. At first our dominance may have been with “good” intentions, but now it is simply because we can. White argues that in order for the Earth to recover from these man-made devastations such as deforestation, industrialization and over consumption, advanced science and technology are not going to do it, instead, we need a new religion that will combat this present ecological crisis.

I’m sure several claims were made against White’s article; after all it challenges belief. There are claims that White makes in which I believe, for instance the realization that we do, as a race, inevitably rule over everything. However, I do not agree with this claim that we need to create a new religion or fix the old one. Relying on anything but ourselves seems like a quick fix, one that I am not willing to wait around for. White alludes to a religion that would promote more earth-friendly human behavior; if we are to rely on another religion, what ideas should we adapt… Buddhism, Hinduism or how about Taoism? All those religions incorporate some sort of earth-friendly belief. For instance, Taoism emphasizes compassion, moderation, and humility. Meanwhile Hinduism refers to spiritual enlightenment, Karma etc. (I apologize if I get this wrong) If this is the case, then why do East Asia, India and other areas that strongly believe these religions have the worst environmental records? If religion is the reason, according to White, why we are in our current environmental crisis, then why rely on religion to get us out?

Whether we try to understand God’s mine through natural theology or play the role of God, we have forever been in control of all that surrounds us.

The Judeo-Christian Stewardship Attitude to Nature

I believe the Patrick Dobel’s argument relies on the notion that those who argue that Christianity is an environmentally abusive religion or who use Christianity to justify environmental exploitation are misreading and distorting the true message of Christianity, which is that humans are to be the caretakers of the environment. While I believe the author lays out a strong and well-reasoned argument in support of this position, I would have liked to see him offer more examples of how religion is commonly distorted and manipulated. A more in depth analysis of how Christianity and other religions have been misread and distorted over time would have greatly strengthened his argument.
For example, I feel as though it would have been helpful if he had compared those who argue that Christianity is an environmentally unfriendly argument to those who promoted Christian violence in the name of God during the Crusades. Just as Christianity is a fundamentally environmentally friendly religion that advocates being a good steward of the environment, it is also a fundamentally peaceful and tolerant religion that was manipulated by those who advocated violence in the name of God and Jesus Christ. To draw a more contemporary comparison, he could have also discussed how Islam is a fundamentally peaceful religion. Despite this, some small groups of radicals have perverted the true message of Islam to justify self-serving religious violence that increases their own power. Despite this shortcoming, I feel as though the author effectively responded to those who would argue Christianity advocates environmental exploitation, although drawing some comparisons to other ways in which religion is distorted to justify other things would have helped.

The Cultural Basis of Our Environmental Crisis

Lewis Moncrief makes many valid points in this article that strongly disprove Lynn White's theory on the responsibility of the Church in the degradation of the environment. Moncrief reminds the readers that humans have been altering their environment since their beginning. White himself says this in his article. Humans cannot exist without affecting their environment. It's impossible. Maybe the impact is increasingly obvious with the modern age, but there is no way to have any idea of the impact on the environment way back when. I agree wholeheartedly with Moncrief when he points out that the "fire drive method of hunting" that existed for the prehistoric humans had to have had strong impacts on the environment.

Moncrief reminds his readers that no culture can eliminate the "egocentric tendencies" of people. This is a strong case. Human beings will always be egocentric. It is an innate curse unfortunately. People are selfish in nature, thinking about their own betterment above all else. The Church does not change the way people are. It can't instill that which has always been inside human beings. Democratization most definitely enhanced the opportunity for every individual to take advantage of that innate selfishness. It allowed for more individuals to have their own impact on the environment. Moncrief makes a strong point suggesting that this democratization coupled with an increasing population took a terrible toll on the environment. It makes perfect sense. The environment didn't stand a chance.

Moncrief goes on to point out that the original frontiersmen eliminated much of the natural resources that to them seemed inexhaustible and "in the way" of their exploration and settlement. Ignorance is bliss for these people. The environment has been affected for a long time now. He is right in saying that there have been multiple forces to blame. The rest of the world's environment is suffering too. The Church cannot be held responsible for the global environment suffering. However, egocentric people exist all over the globe. Technology exists all over the globe, along with science and urbanization. It seems a lot more logical that there are many contributory factors in the equation.

Neither I nor Moncrief are saying that White is wrong because the truth is that no one can know for sure. Is there one cause? Is there multiple causes? How can it be fixed? We all know these questions are unanswered. Moncrief offers plausible alternatives to White's seemingly unfair finger pointing.

On Ecofeminism's Ideal World

Warren’s argument is vulnerable because of her shallow explanations of the most radical parts of her essay, mainly the plausibility of the mind transformation, and of the world without social domination.


Similarly to White’s argument, Warren’s solution to the nature and woman “problem” is a new “religion”, Warren devotes a lot of her theory on this new mental state that replaces the conqueror mentality with a “loving perception”. The revamped mind that Warren argues is necessary for an ecofeminist world requires the refusal of all social distinctions that lead to social domination such as race, gender, and class. She does not say how this mental state would be achieved, as if the whole change is either effortless or requires a miracle. Her dependence on a giant conversion in terms of Western philosophy hurts her argument. I do not understand why she neglects to exemplify how such a mental transformation could take place.


Another issue left cold is the rejection of the conqueror mentality. Warren’s answer to the outcome of humanity without the arrogant mentality is an integral part of the ecofeminist world, but why? What if people desired to conquer the problem of gender inequality or the subordination of nature? Her lone example of the society without domination is Native American Sioux tribe, whose treatment of nature is assumed to be extended to women of that society. One example does not extend her argument far however, and leaves the possibilities either a “cut and paste” version of our society, or something new.