We have read a great deal on causal theories and how they relate to the nature of being over the course of the semester. In my research paper, I would like to explore these theories, what they reveal about our conception of nature, and through that conception, determine any ethical obligations we as humans might have to protect/respect the world in which we take part. Starting with causal theories, I intend to look at what we have read from Aristotle’s Metaphysics, as well as Bergson’s Creative Evolution. Additionally, I will be using Aldo Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac.
Beginning with teleology according to Aristotle, one of the ways in which a thing can change is through the actualizing of its potential. Simply, everything in nature, indeed nature itself, is drawn to a final cause. Individually, everything is naturally pulled to its own “telos” or end which is the greatest good that the thing has the potential to achieve. What I want to address here is whether or not all things, living and nonliving, are working/pulled towards their own ends (good), and whether or not it would be considered unethical to interrupt a being’s process of achieving that end. Under an ethic based on teleologic causation, would we be obligated to preserve the teleological efforts of all beings or would this be limited to other humans, sentient beings, non-sentient living beings, or extended to all things? In other words, should a thing be aware, either consciously or sentiently of its prevention from achieving its telos in order to be ethically protected?
Next, I intend to explore Bergson’s Creative Evolution, and more specifically his answer to the problem of causation, vitalism. Bergson first rejects both mechanism (which I am choosing to ignore in my paper on the grounds that, by positing that all things strictly adhere to the laws of nature, no room is left for morality) and radical teleology based upon his conception of nature as an undetermined, self-moving creative process which is capable of producing completely original entities. Vitalism explains causation as an expanding force without a set end to dictate its direction and natural laws are changing are not absolute, but changing along with the ceaselessly changing world they attempt to explain. Bergson gives the example of a river, constantly flowing, and upon meeting an obstacle, splitting, but not ceasing. And while there is no set purpose nor specific direction towards which evolution is drawn by some end, one might consider that its only desire (for lack of a better word) is to continue in its exponential progression.
What I would like to look at, concerning vitalism, is the question of what degree of manipulation humans have on the process of evolution. Are we merely obstacles of the river of evolution from which it can easily pass by, unscathed, or are we damming it up so that it is reduced to a stream, in danger of drying up? Additionally, Bergson tells us that science, by nature, “treats the living like the inert, applying the same forms [as inorganic matter].” If, through our industrial society and our perception of living things as objects for our benefit, we are narrowing the course of evolution by systematically removing species after species, are we obliged to change our ways in order to revive biodiversity? Should we be concerned with the species themselves or ecosystems as a whole? Should we be allowed to treat animals, plants and ecosystems as objects of our own convenience and pleasure?
This is where Leopold’s “The Land Ethic,” which is contained in A Sand County Almanac, would come into play. Leopold, an American naturalist of the 20th century, describes the world in a way that is not far from Bergson’s conception of life: everything, living and nonliving, is connected--man as a part of the biotic community. In “The Land Ethic,” Leopold sets out to create an ethic which puts limits on “freedom of action in the struggle for existence.” His land ethic, I think, should prove useful in answering the questions in the above paragraph, and might provide one solution t0 our stranglehold on evolutionary progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment