This evening, Earth Day (22 April 2005), Kris Prinzing of Yellowstone Public Radio led a discussion about ethics and nature. Ms. Prinzing is the host of ‘Waste Not, Want Not: Saving the Last Best Place’, one of public radios most popular and incisive programs examining conservation and sustainability in the American West. Guests included Holmes Rolston III (Philosophy, Colorado State University), Walt Gulick (Philosophy and Religious Studies, University of Montana) and myself. The 1.5 hour long program featured a wide-ranging discussion, as well as questions and comments from the audience. You soon be able to listen to the program via streaming media, as well as download a transcript of our initial statements. I’ll tell you as soon as I have more information. In the meantime, my opening comments are below.

Cheers, Bill
~

Earth Day: A Time for Celebration and Reflection

I’d like to make two general points, one having to do with Earth Day itself, and the other on the nature of ethics. I mean these comments to be suggestive, not conclusive. I hope they serve as a point of departure for a deeper conversation on how we can fulfill our ethical responsibilities to people, animals and nature.

With respect to Earth Day, I think there are two facets to keep in mind. On the one hand, today is a moment of celebration, a time to remember the people and organizations who accomplished so much, in the face of overwhelming odds, to defend Earth. It’s a time to reaffirm our vision of living well and with respect for the people, animals and nature of our planet. The movements for animal protection, wildlife conservation, environmental justice, environmental protection, and global sustainability have all contributed significantly to this vision.

On the other hand, Earth Day should also be a moment for critical reflections, one where we face up to our shortcomings, consider emerging challenges, and frame creative responses to new realities. Critical reflection is especially important today, given the corrupt and regressive policies of the Bush administration, the increasingly bitter culture wars over ethics, science and public policy, and the intersecting problems surrounding globalization, sustainability and homeland security.

With respect to the nature of ethics, it is a dialogue about ‘how we ought to live’, and the values that should inform this conversation. Indeed, in the last presidential election, the role of ‘moral values’ took on a new salience in public debate. And in our culture, it is understandable that one response is to look to religion and spirituality for guidance. So I want to endorse what Holmes and Walt have said about the importance of faith. At the same time I want to strike a note of caution. Religion and spirituality are one source of our moral sensibilities. They are not the only or necessarily the most important source and they should not be equated with ethics. In addition, there are many individuals and groups using their dogmatic and intolerant ‘faith’ as a politically divisive weapon in our community. We should reject this misuse of the spirit, and encourage instead a pluralistic dialogue. The question is not whose ethics or faith or philosophy is right, but what each outlook is right about. Thus I like to encourage a dialogue focused on the moral values that protect and extend the well-being of the entire community of life. These values will certainly be rooted in multiple cultures, experiences and points of view. In this way, we can build a reservoir of insight to draw on, triangulate on a vision of how we ought to live, and outline those actions that will best put this vision into practice.

– Bill Lynn, Beacon, NY.