| A
number of thinkers and writers have contributed to the development of
thinking about environmental ethics, and it is worth considering some
of their specific contributions. What are the major traditions that have
emerged or are currently taking shape in environmental ethics? What are
the strengths and weaknesses of particular writers? Are writers from the
past relevant today? What about the "received" ethical and religious
traditions present in the world today?
Some
of the leading religious leaders have begun to focus upon the discussions
of environmental ethics, but the role of religion in environmental matters
has been a controversial one. Several years ago it seemed apparent to
many historians of culture that the received traditions of religious belief
in the Western World may have to be "rethought" in light of
the need for a new kind of environmental ethics appropriate to our contempory
world.
In
1989 the Harvard Divinity School convened a conference on these
matters, and numerous papers were prepared for discussion. Some of these
papers outlined the tremendous task that lay ahead as a challenge for
Western theologians if they hoped to make a significant contribution to
the emerging field of environmental ethics. One of the papers presented
at the conference, published by the Harvard Divinity Bulletin (1989),
was entitled: '"While
Angels Weep..." Doing Theology on A Small Planet.' (The
Harvard Divinity Bulletin, XIX, 3 (1989). Another short paper that
focused on the difficulty of overcoming culturally ingrained habits and
structures of thought in the Abramic religions (Hebrew, Christian and
Muslim religions) was publshed in the Harvard Divinity Bulletin
in the following year. [see: "The
Need for Miracles in the Age of Science," The Harvard
Divinity Bulletin, XX, 2, (Summer 1900)]
The
question: "where do our ethics come from?" is an ongoing debate.
Are we born with "ethical instincts?" or are our ethics derived
from culture? Anthropologists argue strongly that ethics -- like language
-- is a form of cultural behavior that is taught, learned, shared and
unconscious. As with phenomena like language, we learn this aspect of
culture so early and so well that we think of it as "second nature."
Ethics are not, they argue, "instinctual" -- or built in to
our genetic make-up. Nevertheless, a propensity to make ethical judgments
may well be part of our genetic makeup -- just as the "capacity for
language" is a built-in given for all normal humans.
Consider,
the aspects of this debate reflected in this recent radio program:
| Another
"Source" of Morality: Exceptionalist Religious Belief
Note: It is important
to pay attention to the fundamental "exceptionalism"
that is a major component of all Abramic religions --
Judiasm, Christianity and Islam. It is precisely this kind of
thinking that seems to be able to convince people that we are
separate from nature, that 'God' has entitled and empowered us
to do specific things in history -- including doing things to
nature -- and that we will be "saved" from all cataclysms
by our 'faith.' This is, after all, what makes the faithful so
exceptional, according to this line of reasoning. Elements of
this worldview can be seen to be motivating many important public
figures in the world today. Consider, Frontline's recent
report on George W. Bush, entitled "The Jesus Factor."
Furthermore,
on this issue, you should view a discussion of the religious worldview
of President Bush and its implications for the current political
campaign through the coverage from 
Democracy Now
on 20 October 2004, entitled: "God
& The Presidency: An In-Depth Examination Of Faith In The
Bush White House."
Sometimes
disputes arise between those who feel they are annointed or appointed
by 'God.' See, for example, the recent statements
of Pat Robinson concerning President Bush's confidence about
the war in Iraq.
A chilling accout of the doctrinaire rigidity and absolute certainty
of those who hold an "exceptionalist" worldview is available
in the article by Ron Suskind in the New York Times, Sunday
Magazine (17 October 2004), entitled, "Without
a Doubt." Suskind points out that James Wallis has described
President Bush recently as "a messianic American Calvinist."
The
sense of historical self-importance and the ability of those possessed
with President Bush's worldview to dismiss mere "reality-based"
concerns is very revealing and somewhat disturbing. This underscores
the importance of what we have discussed in class -- that is,
the ability of a worldview to override any evidence and re-define
reality in terms that conform to its categories of perception.
Ron
Suskind relates, for example, a conversation he had with a White
House aide which underscores the implicit "theory of agency"
that dominates this moral perspective:
'In
the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire
that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications
director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser
to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then
he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend
-- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush
presidency.'
'The
aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based
community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that
solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible
reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment
principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's
not the way the world really works anymore,'' he
continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act,
we create our own reality. And while you're studying that
reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating
other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how
things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'''
[Ron
Suskind, Without a Doubt, NYT-Magazine, 17 October 2004]
This excerpt
can give you a sense of the "exceptionalism" at work
in the White House under this administration. In reading the
full article you can discern the implied theories
of community, system, authority,
change, agency and time
that motivate this worldview and animate its sense of morality.
Anyone who does not share these implict theories would have
a significantly different worldview and, hence, would be guided
by a different ethic.
Finally,
you may wish to listen to what foreign observers have to say about
this type of belief system and its role in American politics,
particularly during a national election (the 2004 election). 
Justin Webb,
BBC Correspondant
More
recently -- since the 2004 election in the United States -- the
question of religious mandate has surfaced in both national and
international areanas. Fundamentalist religious leaders have emerged
around the world, controlling the political and social agenda
for hundreds of millions of people. You can listen to a discussion
of these matters in a recent nationally broadcast program on the
rise of
"Religious
Fundamentalism."
In addition,
consider, the coverage of religious belief and international issues
in the Middle East raised by the BBC documentary that is to be
aired this past year.
Ewen MacAskill,
"George
Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq:' President told
Palestinians God also talked to him about Middle East peace,"
The Guardian International, (7 October
2005).
"Bush
God comments 'not literal'," BBC News Online, (7 October
2005, 18:09 GMT 19:09 UK Friday).
and
Maura
Reynolds,"Questions
of Faith," NPR - WBUR - On Point, (13 October 2005).
|
|
