Weak-Strong+Perspectives

 




Earth-->Biosphere-->Ecosystems-->Species =__Weak __ =

Weak Holism focuses on the incorporation of species and/or individual entities at some level of moral significance and not strictly in terms of the ecosystem's stability and integrity.
Some weak holists include:

Holmes Rolston III: In "Value in Nature and the Nature of Value", Rolston breaks value down in relation to humans, animals, organisms,species, ecosystems, and the earth. He states "We humans carry the lamp that lights up value, although we require the fuel that nature provides" (144). Rolston sees value as occuring relationally. He then sees animals as defending their lives because they have a good of their own, while organisms hold value because there is more than just physical causes but rather information preserving a physical state. " A life is defended for what it is in itself, without neccessary further contributory reference" (145).

=
Eric Katz: In the essay "Is there a place for Animals in the Moral Consideration of Nature?" He brings individual moral consideration and consideration for the whole together and its compatability with an animal liberation ethic. He offers two principles: the first giving moral consideration primarily to the ecosystem and the second considering individuals, with these revisions made to the holistic approach, there can exist compatability with an animal liberation ethic. [Sanchez] ====== =__Strong __ =

Strong holism claims that everything and every being on Earth is interdependent, and biospheres or ecosystems should be the (exclusive?)  focus of moral concern. Aldo Leopold, the originator of environmental holism, believes that society behaves disrespectfully towards ecosystems by using the land mainly for society's own economic self-interest (41). (Poston)

  =__Anthropocentric Holism __=

Anthropocentric holism values the whole but from an anthropocentric perspective, justifiying their view with the greater good for the benefit of humanity. Example: Bryan G. Norton:(Weak) From this, Norton justifies that obligations from the level of allocation are not obligations to any individual but to the current generation to "maintain a stable flow of resources into the indefinite future" (170). This ethic of allocation is derived from the value of ongoing human consciousness. (OK - this is pretty good stuff to explore here but it needs to be tied more directly into holism, ie, Norton's analogy of the financial trust with an "environmental trust" - this does appear to be a holist view but make this more explicit.) [Sanchez] <span style="display: block; font-size: 120%; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: left;">
 * The distributional level has its principle that one ought not to harm other human individuals unjustifiably (170). Based on felt preferences having equal prima facie value.
 * The level of "allocation": the central value placed on human conciousness is not a result of aggregating the value of individual consciousnesses because the value of ongoing consciousness cannot be derived from the value of individual conciousnesses (170).

To Provoke thought..