Is it in the interest of large companies to preserve the environment w

[01503]

Is it in the interest of large companies to preserve the environment while using its resources? Some people think that Objectivists would destroy the environment in order to have rampant development. (click here).

Would Objectivists destroy the environment in favor of rampant development?

I am not sure if the author is being devil's advocate, but this is a valid question, and I am sure that at least a few people ask this. But is it not in the best interest for large companies to preserve the environment, while at the same time using its resources? For example, by cutting down wood, is it not in the best interest of the company to replant the trees so that they can cut down the new trees in the future? This is my speculation; are there any holes in my argument?

EDIT:

I am sorry, I accidentally put this in the wrong catagory... could someone able please move it?

Edited July 18, 2008 by NickS

[EC]

Is it in the interest of large companies to preserve the environment while using its resources? Some people think that Objectivists would destroy the environment in order to have rampant development. (click here).

I am not sure if the author is being devil's advocate, but this is a valid question, and I am sure that at least a few people ask this. But is it not in the best interest for large companies to preserve the environment, while at the same time using its resources? For example, by cutting down wood, is it not in the best interest of the company to replant the trees so that they can cut down the new trees in the future? This is my speculation; are there any holes in my argument?

EDIT:

I am sorry, I accidentally put this in the wrong catagory... could someone able please move it?

I would reshape the environment to fit my own needs. The environment can not be "ruined" by man because it exists simply for his benefit.

[A is A]

Is it in the interest of large companies to preserve the environment while using its resources? Some people think that Objectivists would destroy the environment in order to have rampant development. (click here).

I am not sure if the author is being devil's advocate, but this is a valid question, and I am sure that at least a few people ask this. But is it not in the best interest for large companies to preserve the environment, while at the same time using its resources? For example, by cutting down wood, is it not in the best interest of the company to replant the trees so that they can cut down the new trees in the future? This is my speculation; are there any holes in my argument?

EDIT:

I am sorry, I accidentally put this in the wrong catagory... could someone able please move it?

Under capitalism, all property is privately owned. So the answer depends upon whose property is being "ruined".

[pam]

I would reshape the environment to fit my own needs. The environment can not be "ruined" by man because it exists simply for his benefit.

I think this exact premise is where many part company with Objectivism.

[Marc K.]

I agree with the other two posts but if this:

For example, by cutting down wood, is it not in the best interest of the company to replant the trees so that they can cut down the new trees in the future?

is what you mean by "preserve the environment" then, yes, it is in their interest to ensure that they have something to harvest in the future. And as a matter of fact this is just what the lumber companies do. Since WWII more trees have been planted in the US than cut down.

[Marc K.]

I think this exact premise is where many part company with Objectivism.

Can you spell out which premise you disagree with and then can you contradict it with a premise which is agreeable?

Do you consider man to be part of the environment? If so then don't you think the environment has been vastly improved by the industrial revolution?

[Nyronus]

You have to ask yourself if you, as a rational producer, would feel morally wrong about dumping garbage in your neighbor's yard, or at the privately owned crematorium. Even without the prudent predator principle warning you of a hedging lawsuit against you by your neighbors, most people would pick the crematorium. People don't sit down and go "Let's destroy the environment because it is funny!" This isn't an episode of Captain Planet, after all. Some people will drop the ball and do some damage to the ecosystem and what not, but I guarantee someone will come along behind them and fix the problem for his own advantage. You see, it is selfish to want a clean environment. The problem is is that the new Green movement demands that we all pay for their ignoble selfishness masquerading as high minded altruism, and that, is wrong.

[EC]

I think this exact premise is where many part company with Objectivism.

I agree. And that's why people need to check their premises.

[Grames]

I would reshape the environment to fit my own needs. The environment can not be "ruined" by man because it exists simply for his benefit.

Please explain how the metaphysically given actually exists for the sake of the benefit of man. This is very poorly phrased shorthand, it sounds like an anthropocentric metaphysics (a variation on primacy of consciousness) which is not Objectivist. The environment we live in doesn't exist for the sake of anything, even for itself. It simply exists.

"Ruin" is a value judgement created by a person, so a layman non-objectivist non-econut will only interpret a denial of ruin as either "no one can disagree" or "any and all amounts of pollution are equally valuable", neither of which makes sense.

Edited July 19, 2008 by Grames

[Capitalism Forever]

an anthropocentric metaphysics (a variation on primacy of consciousness) which is not Objectivist.

You might want to listen to Ayn Rand's review of J. H. Randall's book on Aristotle. You'll be in for a surprise.

[Grames]

You might want to listen to Ayn Rand's review of J. H. Randall's book on Aristotle. You'll be in for a surprise.

I have the article, and I listened to the audio in case her additional remarks had additional value. I was not surprised.

I can't imagine what you had in mind when citing this, except possibly the 'bio-centric' nature of philosophy. As an artifact, created for the purpose of helping men live life then of course philosophy is biocentric, even anthropocentric. That is not the same thing as saying the metphysical nature of reality is biocentric or anthropocentric.

[Marty McFly]

I think this exact premise is where many part company with Objectivism.

Because they believe that global warming is an actual threat and not a political scamthey let the fear mongers get them.

[Capitalism Forever]

philosophy is biocentric, even anthropocentric.

Of course this is what I meant. The exact phrase used is "biocentric Universe."

The reason I brought this up is that I disagree with your assessment of EC's statement as "very poorly phrased shorthand." Would it be poor shorthand to say that your eyes exist so you can see? After all, your eyes a part of nature, and they have certainly not evolved for personally your benefit--you didn't even exist when eyes began evolving--and as eyes, they are mere automata, not very different from the objective of your camera, having no consciousness, no purposes, no conception of existing for someone's benefit. To say that they're there so you can see would be a very anthropocentric way of looking at things, woulnd't it?

I say it would be, and there is nothing wrong with it. Being humans, an anthropocentric perspective is the only perspective we can adopt. To want to speak from a "neutral" perspective, or from a "non-perspective," would be intrinsicism. Objectivity does not demand throwing out our nature as humans and the context that comes with it. And within this anthropocentric context, it not only isn't poor shorthand, it isn't shorthand at all to say that your eyes exist for the benefit of your vision, or that nature ("the environment") exists for the benefit of man.

[Grames]

Of course this is what I meant. The exact phrase used is "biocentric Universe."

The reason I brought this up is that I disagree with your assessment of EC's statement as "very poorly phrased shorthand." Would it be poor shorthand to say that your eyes exist so you can see? After all, your eyes a part of nature, and they have certainly not evolved for personally your benefit--you didn't even exist when eyes began evolving--and as eyes, they are mere automata, not very different from the objective of your camera, having no consciousness, no purposes, no conception of existing for someone's benefit. To say that they're there so you can see would be a very anthropocentric way of looking at things, woulnd't it?

I say it would be, and there is nothing wrong with it. Being humans, an anthropocentric perspective is the only perspective we can adopt. To want to speak from a "neutral" perspective, or from a "non-perspective," would be intrinsicism. Objectivity does not demand throwing out our nature as humans and the context that comes with it. And within this anthropocentric context, it not only isn't poor shorthand, it isn't shorthand at all to say that your eyes exist for the benefit of your vision, or that nature ("the environment") exists for the benefit of man.

Harry Binswanger's The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts provides justification for claiming that my eyes exist for my benefit. It does not provide justification for claiming that the entire, largely inanimate universe exists for my benefit. Things which are biological but are not me, have their own purposes (in Binswanger's teleology) which are not mine. Inanimate things have no purposes at all.

The anthropocentric context applies to ethics and epistemology, it cannot be applied to metaphysics. The primacy of existence principle forbids any variation of an attempt to reason that existence exists so that consiousness can be aware of it.

The neutrality of the universe is described in Peikoff's description of the "benevolent universe" premise:

The “benevolent universe” does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man or that it is out to help him achieve his goals. No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you. You must care about and adapt to it, not the other way around. But reality is “benevolent” in the sense that if you do adapt to it—i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents you will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality.

Any argument that mankind has the right to interfere with the workings of nature should be grounded in ethics not metaphysics for precisely the reason that the anthropocentric perspective cannot be applied in metaphysics.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Grames

[EC]

Only living things have purposes, of course the inanimate qua inanimate has no purpose it just is. But humans can give these things purposes for our own benefit that they did not possess before (or could have have ever possessed without the creative work of a mind) man created their purpose. A mountain in it's self has no purpose, but man can turn it into a ski-resort or mine from it's depths whatever minerals it has. This is what I mean by the "environment" existing for the "purpose" of man, because without man's mind these things have NO purpose and NO value. Men provide that.

[Grames]

Only living things have purposes, of course the inanimate qua inanimate has no purpose it just is. But humans can give these things purposes for our own benefit that they did not possess before (or could have have ever possessed without the creative work of a mind) man created their purpose. A mountain in it's self has no purpose, but man can turn it into a ski-resort or mine from it's depths whatever minerals it has. This is what I mean by the "environment" existing for the "purpose" of man, because without man's mind these things have NO purpose and NO value. Men provide that.

That's much better! Long form explanations are appropriate answers when the questioner isn't familiar with Objectivism.

[Capitalism Forever]

The anthropocentric context applies to ethics and epistemology, it cannot be applied to metaphysics.

What is the appropriate context for metaphysics then?

(And what makes you think that "The environment exists for man's benefit" is a metaphysical statement?)

[Grames]

What is the appropriate context for metaphysics then?

(And what makes you think that "The environment exists for man's benefit" is a metaphysical statement?)

How could metaphysics have any context at all? If metaphysics is about the nature of the universe as a whole, then there is nothing outside the subject to serve as context.

The word "exists", coupled with "for" which makes the existence of something (the environment) teleological. There was no biological or ethical argument being offered so it comes across as a metaphysical statement. Rather than describing how man creates meaning and purpose, it seems to describe the environment as having an embedded, inherent, intrinsic purpose of its own. The structure of the sentence is active voice as if the environment had intentionality, or was created as an artifact with an intended purpose.

[Capitalism Forever]

How could metaphysics have any context at all?

All human knowledge is knowledge within a context. For any statement or theory, you've got to be able to specify the context in which it is made.

Metaphysics doesn't just arise out of nothing; it is formulated when man recognizes his need for a philosophy, and more specifically his need to understand the nature of the universe and man's relationship to it. That is the context in which a theory of metaphysics is expressed--and you'll notice that it's a thoroughly anthropocentric one: we want to know what the world is like--that is the whole--and we want to know how we relate to it--that is the part that we focus, or center, our attention on.

If "Existence exists" and "A is A" were all there was to metaphysics, then you might say that it is not quite anthropocentric. But as soon as you get to "Consciousness exists," man has entered the picture and plays a prominent part.

If metaphysics is about the nature of the universe as a whole, then there is nothing outside the subject to serve as context.

Ah, but there is something inside it--at the center of it, from our perspective!

There was no biological or ethical argument being offered so it comes across as a metaphysical statement. Rather than describing how man creates meaning and purpose, it seems to describe the environment as having an embedded, inherent, intrinsic purpose of its own.

But we are not intrinsicists on this forum, and there is no danger of anyone thinking that an Objectivist might make such a nonsensical statement--especially given that the topic of the thread itself is ethical as well.

[Grames]

All human knowledge is knowledge within a context. For any statement or theory, you've got to be able to specify the context in which it is made.

Be careful of moving from "context of knowledge" to "context of a statement", because I think this statement implies that there are several possible contexts and that one should be selected. If only one context is possible (the full context of one's knowledge), why would there be a need to specify it? So, using the terminology of English sentence structure which is subject-verb-object, is the context of a statement the context of the subject or the context of the object?

When I say metaphysics doesn't have a context, that is context-of-the-object perspective and is valid because there is nothing outside of the universe to which there could be a relationship. When you say even metaphysical knowledge has a context, that is context-of-the-subject perspective, and is valid because knowledge implies a knower. But there is no contradiction between the two perspectives because they lead to statments about different things: the first is a statement about the relationship between "universe" and "context" while the second statement is about knowledge qua knowledge. The context of a statement can be either or both the context of the subject or the context of the object, and it is up to the writer to direct the reader's attention.

I think you are saying context-of-the-object perspective necessarily leads to or is intrinsicism because it is not anthropocentric. I say understanding how objects relate to each other apart from man results in knowledge, knowledge known by man and therefore not alienated from the anthropocentric perspective of philosophy.

Metaphysics doesn't just arise out of nothing; it is formulated when man recognizes his need for a philosophy, and more specifically his need to understand the nature of the universe and man's relationship to it. That is the context in which a theory of metaphysics is expressed--and you'll notice that it's a thoroughly anthropocentric one: we want to know what the world is like--that is the whole--and we want to know how we relate to it--that is the part that we focus, or center, our attention on.

If "Existence exists" and "A is A" were all there was to metaphysics, then you might say that it is not quite anthropocentric. But as soon as you get to "Consciousness exists," man has entered the picture and plays a prominent part.

Ah, but there is something inside it--at the center of it, from our perspective!

Context refers to external relations of the object, not internal. The internal relations of an object are its identity.

But we are not intrinsicists on this forum, and there is no danger of anyone thinking that an Objectivist might make such a nonsensical statement--especially given that the topic of the thread itself is ethical as well.

I hope its clear that any complaint I have is against a particular statement, not any posters. "The environment exists for man's benefit" is such a strong concentration of Objectivist mojo that I couldn't follow it, and I thought I was good at this stuff. I figured surely the OP wouldn't follow it, if he could he wouldn't have asked the question.

[kainscalia]

I've read Cookingham's book and I have to say I was seriously underwhelmed by it. The very few points he makes tend to get drowned out by 1) The lack of a good editor 2) A very patent pettiness (on one moment refuses to talk about the 'problems' that happened at the Objectivist Institute, but a couple of page turns later he is freely batting away at the A.R.I. and pulling no punches, which demonstrates a hidden agenda--- if he were as honest as he pretends to be, he would either air all dirty laundry from both camps or keep it all unaired) and 3) Rather bizarre propositions--- an Objectivist Church? Rituals? I stopped reading the book when he was trying to pair Objectivism with Judaism. At that point -if you pardon me being prosaic- I gave him up as having sunk head and shoulders into a river of crazy and sold the book used.

[01503]

Has anybody read "The Politically Correct Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism"? I got halfway through it before I read Atlas Shrugged (which immediately got my full attention), so I never finished it. Anybody else read it? What did you think of it? I'm just curious.

[Capitalism Forever]

Moderator's Note:

The part of the discussion involving environmentalists has been moved to the Debate Forum: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=13281.

Please note that this forum is private property and we do not wish to let people use it as a vehicle for anti-Objectivist propaganda. Posters who continue to advocate for environmentalism outside of the Debate Forums will have their posting privileges revoked.

[LovesLife]

But is it not in the best interest for large companies to preserve the environment, while at the same time using its resources? For example, by cutting down wood, is it not in the best interest of the company to replant the trees so that they can cut down the new trees in the future?

You just answered your own question. Of course it would be in a tree harvester's best interest to plant more trees. Otherwise, what are they going to have left to harvest when the trees are all gone? Not surprisingly, that exact approach is followed in the industry.

The argument tends to get more difficult when it comes to things like air and water pollution, where the supply appears "infinite." I would argue that it is still in the best interest of large companies to preserve the environment around them, for several reasons: public relations, employee health and safety (benefits costs, minimizing sick time, etc), smoothing the path to future growth, etc. There is also a large moral component to it, and successful companies tend to understand that morality plays an increasingly important role in their business.

However, this line of thinking should be balanced against the other side of the coin, which is employee support and consumer demand. Without both of those, the company couldn't exist. For example, people buy cars and work for car manufacturers even though the cars pollute the air because they believe the trade-off is worth it.