Philosophy & Thought – Page 16

Are Planet Rights Different Than Human Rights?

The protected Cathedral Grove, British Columbia, Canada. *Photo by Sang Trinh/Flickr (Creative Commons)*

An interesting article over on aeon.co by Anna Greer that posits It’s Wrongheaded to Protect Nature with Human-Style Rights.

“After all, it is a hubristic belief in our own singularity and exceptionalism that’s partly responsible for destroying the planet. One thing seems certain: if the law is to respond to the multiple crises afflicting the Earth, and if rights are to be deployed, we need to get rid of the notion of a rights-bearer who is an active, wilful human subject, set against a passive, acted-upon, nonhuman object. The law, in short, needs to develop a new framework in which the human is entangled and thrown in the midst of a lively materiality – rather than assumed to be the masterful, knowing centre, or the pivot around which everything else turns.”

“Some might object that such a decentred approach is likely to be more complex and challenging than relying on existing assumptions about the centrality of ‘the human’. That’s certainly true. But such engagement is preferable – more empirically faithful to what’s there – than continuing to elevate the human as the ethical apex of the legal system. The ‘human’ cannot continue to be the sole benchmark against which other beings must be measured in order to count.”

A novel concept for sure that I agree with at first blush. I can’t begin to comprehend how everyone could find agreement on this as well as what ‘rights’ non-human entities would be entitled to – though I think it’s a discussion worth having.

I can’t quite get my head around the concept of ‘the law’ as mentioned in the first quote developing a new ‘non-human-centric’ framework, when ‘the law’ is itself a human construct. One could argue possibly that what is ‘moral’ or ‘true’ or ‘right’ exists outside of the realm of humans and is there whether or not we as a species are there to perceive it, but if that is the case, then words would seem not able to describe it and make it difficult to translate into any form of ‘human law’.

Guess I’ll leave it up to the environmental lawyers to sort out.

All Minus One: Notes

There’s been quite a bit of ugliness down in the States the past few years, particularly on college campuses with ‘deplatforming’ and ‘disinviting’ of speakers, speakers and professors being shouted down, censured or even fired, mostly over free speech issues. A disturbing trend for sure.

Professor Jonathan Haidt and others started an organization called the Heterodox Academy to address this.

“Heterodox Academy is a non-profit alliance of professors from across the political spectrum who agree with Mill that “he who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.” We advocate for increased viewpoint diversity in higher education. We offer tools and ideas that help universities create the vibrant cultures of debate that Mill thought were essential for the pursuit of truth.”
–HeterodoxAcademy.org

I mentioned in a previous post that one of the projects they’d undertaken was to edit the chapter from John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty to make it more accessible to high school and university-aged students as well as a tool for teachers. In my opinion, they did a fantastic job. I wanted to share a few chunks of Mill’s that seem particularly relevant to the issues facing universities.

“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

“Yet it is as evident in itself, as any amount of argument can make it, that ages are no more infallible than individuals; every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd; and it is as certain that many opinions, now general, will be rejected by future ages, as it is that many, once general, are rejected by the present.”

“However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.”

“But there is a commoner case…when the conflicting doctrines, instead of being one true and the other false, share the truth between them; and the non-conforming opinion is needed to supply the remainder of the truth, of which the received doctrine embodies only a part. Popular opinions, on subjects not palpable to sense, are often true, but seldom or never the whole truth.”

“Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil; there is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides…”

On ‘Public Philosophy’

Came across the beginnings of what so far is a great series of articles on ‘Public philosophy’ over at The Point Magazine by Agnes Callard. In the first article, Is Public Philosophy Good?, Ms. Callard writes:

“Recently, there have been rumblings of a Great Escape, one that goes by the name of “Public Philosophy.” Public philosophy includes, but extends beyond, the pop philosophy found in books such as Logicomix, Sophie’s World or The Matrix and Philosophy. Pop philosophy, which has parallels in pop physics, pop history and pop psychology, presents philosophical figures or concepts in an accessible way; the “pop” genre more generally, informs nonprofessionals of developments in some field

I guess I would qualify as what she later goes on to detail as a ‘public philosopher’. I have the interest, but not (yet anyway) the academic background and training in the subject. Ms. Callard continues:

“It is one thing to share information about philosophy and another to offer non-philosophers a way of participating in the activity. Public philosophy aspires to liberate the subject from its academic confines: to put philosophy into action. Is that a good thing?”

I think it is. While obviously not a substitute for intensive learning and academic study, I think Public philosophy could only serve to inspire more thought and creativity within the public sphere and day-to-day life. In addition I would think the normalization of the practice of philosophic thought and inquiry could motivate future generations to engage with philosophy on a more serious, academic level.

In the second article in the series, The Emotion Police, Ms. Callard declares:

“Who could possibly have the gall to tell the entire human race what it should and should not feel? Philosophers, that’s who!”

Ms. Callard goes on to detail four other philosophers who have targeted specific emotions that, in their observation, need to be dealt with in order to facilitate better living. Regret, anger, grief and empathy all get the once over with the commonality being that rational thought applied to each of these emotions would allow for better management thereof, and better society overall.

“These four thinkers rightly point to the variety of ways in which negative emotions turn our lives upside down, make us miserable and divert us from pursuing what is good.”
-Agnes Callard

Ultimately, to wrap up this excellent second article, Ms. Callard turns her sights on hatred as the emotion that we could probably all best do without and have difficulty justifying.

I will have to be content with my ‘amateur’ status in the philosophy game for now and hope one day for a shot in the ‘pro’ ranks. In the meantime, I’ll continue to absorb and enjoy what I can via the ‘public’ channels, and am looking forward to the rest of the articles in Ms. Callard’s series.