essay 2
Jeremy Kyncl
9-27-04
Ethics
Aristotle and the CynicsSnowmobiles in Yellowstone:Analysis by Aristotle’s Schema and the Cynic Schema
Taking two classical philosophical views of a modern problem can make it easier to analyze and form a course of action. In this paper we will discuss and argue the merit of snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park using the methods described above.For Aristotle, the middle way is the most important factor in the debate. One possible virtue for the laws governing recreation in Yellowstone is the virtue of conservation. Too little conservation can lead to destruction of a national treasure while too much could do the same by ceasing public enjoyment of the park. Part of what makes Yellowstone so important is that people go there to enjoy and marvel at the beauty of nature. Thus we must protect that beauty without excising the public viewing of it. To achieve this we must conserve so that the beauty will last for future generations.To find the mean we must first look at the extremes. On the side of too little conservation we find major flaws. The first is that without regulation of snowmobiling in the park nature will be destroyed. By destroying that which we seek to enjoy we cause blame to be leveled by future generations because there is nothing of the beauty, which was so special, left to enjoy. Also, by deregulating traffic in the park we favor unrestrained capitalism. This seeking of profits will ultimately cause blame by future generations and those who wanted to keep the park for future generations.The other extreme is regulating snowmobiling too much. This would lead to the collapse of local economies centered on snowmobiling. This causes blame by the residents of the area who depended on this sport for their livelihood. Also, the snowmobilers would find blame because they are not allowed to use Yellowstone for recreation, as it was partially intended. Also, how can we determine who can and can’t enter an area that the everyone owns through the government?This leads us to a discussion of the mean, conservation. By allowing some recreation local economies can be maintained while the park is protected and conserved. In this situation neither party will be completely happy but both will get to enjoy the park in the future. This is the entire point. Being a slave to either side is unhealthy and cannot be virtuous.To make sure that the virtue of conservation is properly acted out one must also consider the 5 Appropriates as outlined by Aristotle. The first is directing the action at the right person. This can be seen as being toward two groups. The snowmobilers and the environmentalists are the first but no one should forget the generations to come. Both should both be considered in any decision. To make an appropriate decision one should aim somewhere between the groups, this compromise is the middle way.The second concern is to allow the right amount of recreation. Too much and we lose the park, too little and no one can enjoy what was intended to be enjoyed.The third appropriate is about timing. If we do not act before Yellowstone is destroyed then there is no point to making any law concerning its conservation.The fourth aspect is regulating use for the right reason. Conserving this precious resource is the reason for the laws, a correct reason.The fifth and final appropriate is doing this all in the right way. By providing a fair law that doesn’t favor either group this can be achieved.Another factor that could help with the problem is Aristotle’s concept of friendship. The idea here is that if you lack the virtue you may befriend someone who is closer to the virtue than yourself and thus advance toward the virtue. If you are happy to desecrate the park and destroy wildlife you should befriend someone who still does but doesn’t feel good about it. To become better from there you should befriend someone who while they enjoy the activity refrains because they see that it is damaging to the environment. From here you may proceed even further by finding someone who is happy conserving the environment and doesn’t even debate whether or not to do this. The example here are those who snowmobile but the environmentalists could follow a similar path to find the mean and virtue in conservation.The Cynic would take a different view of this situation altogether. Both groups mentioned above are fueled by a desire, are armed with teams of lawyers to defend their viewpoint, rely on laws set by society and lead altogether faulty lives because of these things. These groups are motivated by the wrong things. The main reason that these groups have such a problem is that they both have something to lose. The fact that both groups are armed in defense of their position shows that neither one has the true way. Nancy, I know you want me to take the environmental side but I simply think that it is flawed as well, less so than the snowmobiler’s side but flawed nonetheless. Both of these groups seek the mandate of the law to defend their position. This is the fundamental flaw with both. The mandate they seek is not from nature but from man. Since the Cynics follow natural law and a natural way of being they could not find either group to be completely right. Neither will ever be able to prevail against the opponent. Both groups fail to recognize that they are not what they claim to be, right.In order to find the true path they must lead a natural life, they must conquer their vices. Destroying nature is wrong. Destroying it with a machine conceived of by man is worse. Thus the snowmobiles ought not be allowed at all. They must be decried to as many people as will listen. They must be decried in a populous area, in the middle of the cities. The Cynic would preach not to the elite as other philosophers but to the masses in order to effect the change sought.
Although both schemas would achieve the same result the route to that result is drastically different. In Aristotle’s solution both would keep their possessions and merely compromise on the use of Yellowstone by both. They need not take the radical step the Cynics espouse and rid themselves of all material good and live on the land itself. However, in doing this both groups would come to an accord about how to live. Thus, neither doctrine can be said to have an advantage over the other since both could be equally effective.
9-27-04
Ethics
Aristotle and the CynicsSnowmobiles in Yellowstone:Analysis by Aristotle’s Schema and the Cynic Schema
Taking two classical philosophical views of a modern problem can make it easier to analyze and form a course of action. In this paper we will discuss and argue the merit of snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park using the methods described above.For Aristotle, the middle way is the most important factor in the debate. One possible virtue for the laws governing recreation in Yellowstone is the virtue of conservation. Too little conservation can lead to destruction of a national treasure while too much could do the same by ceasing public enjoyment of the park. Part of what makes Yellowstone so important is that people go there to enjoy and marvel at the beauty of nature. Thus we must protect that beauty without excising the public viewing of it. To achieve this we must conserve so that the beauty will last for future generations.To find the mean we must first look at the extremes. On the side of too little conservation we find major flaws. The first is that without regulation of snowmobiling in the park nature will be destroyed. By destroying that which we seek to enjoy we cause blame to be leveled by future generations because there is nothing of the beauty, which was so special, left to enjoy. Also, by deregulating traffic in the park we favor unrestrained capitalism. This seeking of profits will ultimately cause blame by future generations and those who wanted to keep the park for future generations.The other extreme is regulating snowmobiling too much. This would lead to the collapse of local economies centered on snowmobiling. This causes blame by the residents of the area who depended on this sport for their livelihood. Also, the snowmobilers would find blame because they are not allowed to use Yellowstone for recreation, as it was partially intended. Also, how can we determine who can and can’t enter an area that the everyone owns through the government?This leads us to a discussion of the mean, conservation. By allowing some recreation local economies can be maintained while the park is protected and conserved. In this situation neither party will be completely happy but both will get to enjoy the park in the future. This is the entire point. Being a slave to either side is unhealthy and cannot be virtuous.To make sure that the virtue of conservation is properly acted out one must also consider the 5 Appropriates as outlined by Aristotle. The first is directing the action at the right person. This can be seen as being toward two groups. The snowmobilers and the environmentalists are the first but no one should forget the generations to come. Both should both be considered in any decision. To make an appropriate decision one should aim somewhere between the groups, this compromise is the middle way.The second concern is to allow the right amount of recreation. Too much and we lose the park, too little and no one can enjoy what was intended to be enjoyed.The third appropriate is about timing. If we do not act before Yellowstone is destroyed then there is no point to making any law concerning its conservation.The fourth aspect is regulating use for the right reason. Conserving this precious resource is the reason for the laws, a correct reason.The fifth and final appropriate is doing this all in the right way. By providing a fair law that doesn’t favor either group this can be achieved.Another factor that could help with the problem is Aristotle’s concept of friendship. The idea here is that if you lack the virtue you may befriend someone who is closer to the virtue than yourself and thus advance toward the virtue. If you are happy to desecrate the park and destroy wildlife you should befriend someone who still does but doesn’t feel good about it. To become better from there you should befriend someone who while they enjoy the activity refrains because they see that it is damaging to the environment. From here you may proceed even further by finding someone who is happy conserving the environment and doesn’t even debate whether or not to do this. The example here are those who snowmobile but the environmentalists could follow a similar path to find the mean and virtue in conservation.The Cynic would take a different view of this situation altogether. Both groups mentioned above are fueled by a desire, are armed with teams of lawyers to defend their viewpoint, rely on laws set by society and lead altogether faulty lives because of these things. These groups are motivated by the wrong things. The main reason that these groups have such a problem is that they both have something to lose. The fact that both groups are armed in defense of their position shows that neither one has the true way. Nancy, I know you want me to take the environmental side but I simply think that it is flawed as well, less so than the snowmobiler’s side but flawed nonetheless. Both of these groups seek the mandate of the law to defend their position. This is the fundamental flaw with both. The mandate they seek is not from nature but from man. Since the Cynics follow natural law and a natural way of being they could not find either group to be completely right. Neither will ever be able to prevail against the opponent. Both groups fail to recognize that they are not what they claim to be, right.In order to find the true path they must lead a natural life, they must conquer their vices. Destroying nature is wrong. Destroying it with a machine conceived of by man is worse. Thus the snowmobiles ought not be allowed at all. They must be decried to as many people as will listen. They must be decried in a populous area, in the middle of the cities. The Cynic would preach not to the elite as other philosophers but to the masses in order to effect the change sought.
Although both schemas would achieve the same result the route to that result is drastically different. In Aristotle’s solution both would keep their possessions and merely compromise on the use of Yellowstone by both. They need not take the radical step the Cynics espouse and rid themselves of all material good and live on the land itself. However, in doing this both groups would come to an accord about how to live. Thus, neither doctrine can be said to have an advantage over the other since both could be equally effective.
posted by Anonymous at
20:51
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home