[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 123 KB, 720x483, FB_IMG_15908424954114563.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15634834 No.15634834 [Reply] [Original]

Is there any writer or phylosopher who argues in favor of an ethical obligation that men have towards preserving nature or the existence of other species?
I feel that it's not right to directly or indirectly drive other species into extinction, but i can't make an actual argument on why it is so.

>> No.15634847

philosopher*

>> No.15634856

>>15634834
Murray Bookchin

>> No.15635087

>>15634834
Probably the Cynics or early Stoics, since they crux of the philosophy is that man truly can find blessedness in accepting and his place in nature accordance with his nature. Problem is the early Stoic works are sparse fragments now due to them being lost over time and I'm not even sure if the Cynics wrote anything because it only seems their opponents, historians of philosophy and some poets that followed a particular Cynic seem to have a rudimentary grasp of the philosophy.

>> No.15635157
File: 17 KB, 620x330, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15635157

Read Pope Francis' encyclical "Laudato Si."

>> No.15636266
File: 643 KB, 1024x768, lush.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15636266

>>15634834
Ed Abbey

There's no right or wrong in evolution. It all depends on the situation. It's a bad idea to totally wipe out other species, even predators and parasites, because you might need that genetic diversity someday.

>> No.15637153

>>15634834
Aldo leopold. He was a forest service agent in the early 20th century and after a life in the wildlands formulated his land ethic which is pretty much exactly what you asked for.

>> No.15637158

>>15635087
those nerds didnt talk about hippie nature but human nature

>> No.15638068

>>15635157
This pope is the definition of a midwit

>> No.15638075

>>15634834
marx

>> No.15638080
File: 20 KB, 334x445, 51Q1hP47R-L._SY445_QL70_ML2_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15638080

This one is a tour de force that goes extremely deep into the heart of the matter.

> tfw when you realize our civilization is literally Satanic.

>> No.15638120
File: 35 KB, 337x500, images - 2020-06-18T202512.387.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15638120

This

>> No.15638143

Hans Jonas.

>> No.15638424

>>15638120
>>15638080
>>15636266
>>15634856
thanks

>>15636266
>It's a bad idea to totally wipe out other species, even predators and parasites, because you might need that genetic diversity someday.
but what if we don't? i want a non-utilitarian perpective

>> No.15638452

>>15634834
>ethical obligation
i dont get it, why not just drop the moralizing. The moralizing *IS* the leviathan eating the planet in a bid to attain heaven. fuck your ethical obligation, fuck your theory, blow shit up, impregnate shit. Nature does not need your help winning anon, don't work yourself into a tizzy over an industrial machine you can do nothing to stop

>> No.15638505

>>15638452
yea, that is my problem.
i saw those orangutangus on tv whose natural habitat got reduced in 75% in 40 years, mostly in favor of palm oil plantations, and that they were nearly extint due to hunting etc. and i thought "this is fucked up" but then i imagine this being an argument and someone asked me "why is it wrong?" and i simply can't come to an answer. I know enough about biology to know that the other species don't give a shit about each other or "nature balance", and that they'd driven other species to extinction many many times, if any of these chimps found an exploit that they could use to get more resources but fuck over other species they'd use it without a second thought. So, why do i think it's wrong for humans to do the same?

>> No.15638541

>>15638505
Agreed. I really cannot see it as a good in itself. Only for situational goals or aesthetic value. And even then, universal disdain for it in every case seems all or nothing for no viable reason. “Genetic diversity” is an absolute cop out.

>> No.15638558

Look into deep ecology. Read Arne Naess, or Pentti Linkola if you want to go ecofash

>> No.15638586

>>15638558
Yes, but can you just give a reason? Not just a rec? Like whats the thesis to prove it is an ethical obligation

>> No.15638616

>>15638586

More than a reason it's a tearing-down of the anthropocentric framework for human civilization. The idea that one lifeform (human) is more valuable than another (animal) because it's more complex or intelligent has no real basis, because the value of life is unquantifiable.

>> No.15638898

>>15634834
Tumblr tier meme.