The debates on this blog and in environmental ethics in general, are interesting and increasingly germane. The climate change issue has been a significant one for some time now and as science rapidly reveals more about nature and ourselves we are forced to confront difficult ethical questions. I hope to be able to contribute in a number of relevant debates (particularly concerning the ethical treatment of animals from a consequentialist and a Kantian perspective), but, I wanted to briefly post concerning aesthetics.
Aesthetics often enters into debates about environmental ethics, or any debate about nature in general, because our appreciation of it certainly has an aesthetic component. In this post, I wanted to briefly discuss Edmund Burke’s discussion of the ‘beautiful’ and particularly the beauty of animals.
For Burke, beauty is associated with the passions belonging to society (I.viii). Burke subdivides this into the society of the sexes and general s
ociety (I.viii). The passions belonging to generation, unlike those belonging to preservation, are based on pleasure (I.viii). The base passion associated with generation is lust (I.x). Human beings, however, attach a social quality to the passions associated with generation, thus, choosing a mate is more complicated for mankind than other animals (I.x). The passion generated by this is love (I.x) and the object of this passion is “the beauty of the sex” (I.x). Generative love, then, is mixed with lust (I.xviii), but the love associated with society in general “is called likewise love” (I.xviii). It arises from beauty as well, but has no admixture of lust. Therefore, beauty is a social quality.Love is further defined as “that satisfaction which arises to the mind upon contemplating anything beautiful, of whatsoever nature it may be” (III.i). Burke distinguishes between love and lust, or desire because a man (in his example) can lust after an un-beautiful woman, for instance, and feel no such desire for a beautiful animal or man (III.i). So, the the likewise, or social love applies to all of society, not just the sexual society of men and women. The object of social love, then, is the “great society with man and all other animals” (I.xviii). So, animals, from cows to koalas can inspire this social love by virtue of their beauty which can give us a “sense of joy and pleasure in beholding them” (I.x). Burke is puzzled as to why man should be affected by animals in this way, so he just attributes it to Providence (I.x).
Burke’s account of love and beauty, obviously, is only one narrow (and quite strange at tim
es) view of the issue, but I think he hits on a strong point with the above. Many of the animal rights crusades center around what are sometimes known as ‘charismatic mega-fauna’. ‘Save the Whales’ immediately comes to mind (though Burke might think a whale should inspire feelings of terror). A whale, dolphin or wolf is generally thought (and is in my opnion) to be a quite beautiful creature. If earth worms or slime mold were endangered, I think, one would be far less likely to see a bumper sticker sporting their images.There are many movements to save non-charismatic creatures, of course, but I wonder if the beauty of certain animals and the ‘love’ this inspires has a lot to do with which animals are preserved and supported. Perhaps we have found part of the answer to Burke’s question as to why hu
man beings seem to be able to develop a social attachment to certain creatures. Or, perhaps, it is just an example of human bias and emotion affecting what should really be scientific debates. One should recall the fairly recent contorversy in which dolphins (beuatiful, intelligent creatures) were being ensared in tuna nets. I'm simplifying here, but a great international protest was launched and tuna sales plummeted. But--we must ask--who speaks for the tuna? Or, why do the dolphins merit more tenacious support? Any thoughts?
PS—In case you were wondering why Bruce Campbell trivia would direct a spammer here, I have no answer. In fact, I’m fairly sure it wouldn’t have, until now, of course, given how many times I’ve mentioned him in this posting. In any case, I don't think it will hurt the blog to have a shot of Campbell with some charismatic mega-fauna. ;)
Iris Spoor
Iris,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to contribute to our class discussion. Burke's observations about the beauty of the natural world, and specifically of animals, is an important one, I think. It does seem as if most of our public debates about the preservation of animal species do indeed concern the "charismatic mega-fauna." This is especially troubling, perhaps, for the "deep ecologist", for whom there is, as Kohak puts it, " a fundamental equality of all life." Given this fundamental equality, then, is it not morally problematic to save the whales but allow the tuna to perish simply because it is easier to "love" the whale? Perhaps, as the composer John Cage often remarked , the trick is to transcend our judgments of taste (the judgment that a thing is "beautiful" or "ugly") and open ourselves to the excellence of the world in all of its aspects (including tuna, slime mold, and the earth worm).
Jay
You make a very good about the tuna. a good deal of the love for other animals felt by humans is due to anthropomorphism. people commonly give names to their pets and even give them clothes. People dont seem to mind when we wipe out billions of bacteria every time we take medicine. nevertheless, there are those out there that do believe in animal equality and would, if only indirectly, speak for the tuna. still there would not be a save the plaugue baccilla campaign like there is a save the whale campaign. the "beauty" of nature is seen (and can only be seen for us) through human eyes. what is beuatiful to a tuna might be entirely different. we should look at nature as a whole, otherwise we might not, as the saying goes, see the forrest for the trees.
ReplyDeleteIt's my pleasure to join in; particularly given that UC is hiring a new enviromental ethics/policy professor (we were treated to several talks on the subject)
ReplyDeleteYou both make great points. To treat all life equally is a tremendous moral demand and one that human beings might not be able to realistically fill. However, an adjustment of our aesthetic sense, along Cage's lines, might help counteract our baser intuitions.
Then again, one might argue that these feelings and biases are perfectly fine justifications for our behavior towards the natural realm. I must say, though, I can't think of any theorists off the top of my head.
This verges on science fiction, but it might be fruitful, for such extreme theorists, to consider how an alien race might view the human species. Would we be 'beautiful' enough to save? If we consider the possibility that the answer might be 'no', I think it is a solid ground for re-evaluating the way we "value" certain species. As Richard notes, judgments of taste can be notoriously subjective.
Iris
And of course our aesthetic response to a particular species often does change in dramatic ways. I attended a panel discussion in October in Chicago focusing on the ongoing debate over the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park. At one point a member of the audience from Poland remarked that in his country the wolf was widely regarded as a pest, whereas in the US it seemed as if many people developed sentimental attachments to wolves. The panelists also discussed the role of nature documentaries, which often use narrative and visual techniques taken from dramatic cinema to make the viewer care about individual wolves. The success of one recent wolf documentary has even led to a kind of "celebrity stalking" phenomenon in Yellowstone, with park visitors working themselves into a frenzy over an alleged sighting of "wolf # 59." For the local ranchers, though, wolves are still often seen mainly as threats to their livelihood, or as simply beneath regard.
ReplyDeleteJay
Here is part of the "Wolf Project" manifesto as found on the organization's website. Notice that the first important characteristic of wolves listed is an aesthetic one; wolves are worthy of interest because they are, or have become, " a powerful symbol."
ReplyDeleteWhy the Wolf?
It is a powerful symbol.
A wolf howls, announcing to all that a special event has occurred. This howl is an invitation for all to join in.
Like many cultural groups the wolf has suffered from tremendous persecution at times which has been based on fear and ignorance.
Wolves, being highly social animals, serve as a reminder that survival depends upon working together.
How You Can Participate
Initiate a project that will promote racial harmony
Submit a nomination form for an award
Make a donation to The Wolf Project
Unique Aspects of The Wolf Project
The Wolf Project was developed through a grassroots initiative.
The Wolf Project provides a resource for others to use to promote unity.
All people who improve race unity are considered. You can be a President of a country or a child in a playground to be eligible for an award.
The nominating group or individual usually assists with the presentation.
Partnerships and community participation is a major guiding principle of The Wolf Project.
There is no limit on the number of wolf awards that are given out in a year. The Wolf Project simply wants to bestow honour where it is due.
The Wolf Project has found a creative and innovative way to provide a learning environment that promotes unity.
The Wolf Project recognizes that racial and cultural unity will be one of the major global issues of the 21st century.
That's really interesting--next we'll see 'Wolf #59' on TMZ with illegitimate cubs.
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting that the Wolf Project chose to use "the wolf is a powerful symbol" as a grounds for preservation. It sounds vaguely Jungian, but certainly aesthetic.
The point about cultural perspectives is a strong one.
It would be really interesting, just from a descriptive standpoint, to see what animals are most highly valued in a given culture and see if that has had a strong impact on the surrounding enviroment.
Iris