Eric+Katz

"Is There a Place for Animals in the Moral Consideration of Nature?" (Thompson)
Eric Katz believes that the ecological system should be considered holistically, and primarily. Katz also says that individuals should be considered secondarily. What this means is that when an ecosystem is not in danger, then the individual should be considered, and that this “primary, secondary” method of environmental ethics will be consistent with current environmental positions and ideals, such as preserving endangered species that have no real, active part in the environment. For instance, if only the ecological system were considered, why then would individual endangered species be considered, when their numbers are so low that have no real interaction with functioning members of their ecosystem, or no real actual effect on their environmental community? This secondary level of consideration allows for the moral consideration of individuals as well, when the biotic community as a whole is not at stake.

Katz says that the animal liberation camp and the environmental ethics camp are seemingly irreconcilable (92). However, with his two-principle environmental ethic the two can come together with minor modification. If the ecosystem as a whole is not in question, then it is necessary to save the individuals that animals liberation people want to save. However animal liberation, will have to accept some loss because things like therapeutic hunting for the good of the environment as a whole are necessary.


 * Quotation(s) articulating key arguments:**

//“Thus, the balancing of these two kinds of moral consideration yields the most plausible and practical environmental ethic, an environmental ethic that is essentially in accord with environmentalist intuitions about the protection of the natural environment, and that is reasonable enough to be accepted by human moral agents.” (Thompson)//

"The Big Lie: Human Restoration of Nature" (Abdolhosseini)
I. Katz is opposed to the following:
 * Common idea that “Environmental polices present the message that humanity should repair the damage that human intervention has caused the natural environment.” (390)
 * We recognize the harm we caused and we posses the means and will to correct these harms. We feel a sense of relief of the guilt when we restore the destruction we caused.
 * Paul Taylor and Peter Wenz believe we are obligated to give restitution in the form of repairing or compensating for acts of destruction of the natural environment we create.
 * Katz believes this concept of restoration to be an anthropocentric view of world. It is just another way to have dominion over the earth while pretending to be environmental conscious (391).

II. Elliot overview:
 * “He examined the moral objections to the practical environmental policy of restoring damaged matural systems, locations, and landscapes.” Even if restoration projects were able to recreate the habitat to one that is empirically identical, it still would have less value than the original. The restored natural area would be analogous to an art forgery. Like art, the origins of the natural area are crucial to it having value. There is a special continuity with the past (historical context). To understand the art work of the natural area in its historical context we require understanding and evaluation. If one was to value the restored landscape as much as the original, then they would be considered ignorant because they are fooled by the superficial similarities to the natural area.
 * It is a physical impossibility to restore land completely and is a moral mistake. But it is now advocated as proper environmental policy.

III Artifacts “Chris Maser forest as factory” “Steve Packard using natural forces such as fire as restoration” ( still artifact) (393)
 * Humans believe there always is a technological, mechanical, or scientific solution. Restoration projects are just an artifact created for human use. (Not going to talk about animal-created artifacts: beaver dams) (392). The concepts of function and purpose are central to an understanding of artifacts. Artifacts have a “nature” that is partially comprised of three features: “internal structure, purpose, and manner of use”
 * Natural objects lack these functions and purpose. They do not have “intrinsic function” according to Andrew Brennan because they were not the result of design. (Predators were not designed to regulate deer population)
 * Natural individuals were not designed for a purpose.
 * Artifacts =Anthropocentric because they are created for human use and human purpose. They are “anthropocentrically designed human artifacts.” (392)

IV Art/nature analogy
 * “Elliot’s art analogy may not be best” (L. B. Cebik) Artist is fundamental to art, thus forgery is non-comparable. Where as art stems from an individualistic approach, music may be a better analogy for it evolved over time amongst many

V Nature of natural objects This is why restoration is not natural for it is a artificial, false reality.
 * A simple definition of nature is that is independent of the actions of humanity (395).
 * There are two prominent oppositions to this statement. The first being that man touched the entire world ether with pollution or technology and thus nothing truly natural exists anymore. The second is that humans themselves are naturally evolved beings and thus all human actions would be natural.
 * Response: The human and nature relationship should exist on a spectrum and not in absolutes. To address the latter, Brennan claims that humans are natural and that which is unnatural extends beyond our biological and evolutionary capacities.
 * The “natural” then is a term we use to designate objects and processes that exist as far as possible from human manipulation and control (396).

VI Conclusion
 * As far as public policy goes, we should try to restore what has already happened and attempt to make the best out of a bad situation. However, we should create policies that prevent us from having to do restoration.