Do we have a moral obligation to Nature? Most people extend moral standing to their family, friends, town, country, maybe as far as human species. What about beyond that? Animals? Sure, they have a nervous system and they can be cute. What about things that are nothing like us? Trees? Fungi?… Rocks? What universal force obliges us to act respectfully toward them? Does ethics even apply to rocks? Or was this just the tired ramblings of an overthinker? Listen and see…
Resources
Sponsors
Quotes
29.09 - 29.23: “That’s often how the respect ethic has accounted for larger ecosystemic problems, is by saying that there are other human beings that are affected.”
Takeaways
Out of doors (05.44)
Nathan explains that many environmental writers prefer to say ‘out of doors’ instead of outdoors, to step away from the connotations of masculinity and related activities that the outdoors are usually associated with.
Depth and profundity (13.55)
Nathan defines philosophy as “the search for the meaning of things”. Philosophy helps us understand if things are meaningful and why, by posing helpful questions about meaning. It offers a rigorous process to get closer to answers.
“Part of being a philosopher is being frustrated” (16.23)
Nathan finds that philosophy attempts to answer questions that humans have always wondered about, and the process of finding the answers repeats over and over. The answers one comes across could be what work for them, but may not be the final answer.
Moral frameworks (23.19)
Morality, Nathan says, is about “trying to discover the answer to questions of human behaviour,” and is used interchangeably with ethics in philosophy. Harm minimization (utilitarianism) and respect (deontology) are two frameworks of ethics.
If you believe you can or Kant (27.24)
Immanuel Kant, the classical deontologist, believed that only rational beings could be the recipients of moral regard because they could reciprocate respect, which Nathan believes is a deeply anthropocentric position to take.
How useful is utilitarianism? (31.49)
Nathan talks about utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer’s theory that our circle of consideration must evolve to include non-human animals, but he also defines the limits of that circle.
“If you are not having anxiety when you are philosophizing, you are not doing it right” (37.53)
Nathan finds a sense of meaning in a sense of belonging in nature in a way that is embedded into what already exists. His identity comes from nature rather than in opposition to it. To him, respecting nature and its components is important.
Mindfulness (53.12)
Nathan believes that a person’s sense of connection with and belonging to nature may impact the outcomes of activities done in nature, but it will surely help them discover things about themselves.
Thinking is piety (1.05.03)
Nathan believes that the way in which we should relate to nature is to fit into a larger framework, so we can see ourselves as connected to nature, instead of as the center of the universe.
Re-indigenizing the planet in the Anthropocene (1.20.07)
Nathan laments the atrocities that were committed in the conquest of the land that has now come to be known as Canada. However, he finds hope in nature, that it is stronger than a culture can be.
Você pode gostar
