Last night, in my class on the ecology of invasive species an interesting question was raised: why should we care about preventing the spread of invasive species? The person who asked this reinforced their question with Darwinian evolutionary theory, i.e. survival of the fittest. Her argument was essentially: If invasive species are more fit than indigenous species then they will naturally take over the native's positions in the ecosystem and it's the native's fault for not being fit enough to deal with the invasion. And since humans are a part of the natural system (even if we pretend like we aren't) our actions (namely introducing invasives) are natural processes, comparable to volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and doomsday asteroids. Therefore, invasive species are just following the rules of nature and we should let them run their course.
This opinion did not go over well with the rest of the class. It's apparent that the introduction of invasive species is the second largest threat to biodiversity and species extinction, only habitat loss poses a greater threat (Wilcove et al. 1998). Furthermore, it seems that biodiversity is something that humankind wants to preserve and many are willing to spend large sums to do so (BBC: "Protection for Weirdest Species"). But what I saw when these grad students tried to define why we ought to protect other species from extinction it looked like people grasping for straws while drowning. Inadvertently these students had wondering into the frightening realm of philosophy. To say the least no one who offered an opinion had the tools to make their point sound like anything more than personal preference.
It appeared to me that those students who offered their opinions fell into one of the terrible gaps in naturalism that makes this philosophy so unappealing. [Note: Naturalism in this context refers to the philosophy that all of reality is composed of the physical world that we see and experience. There is absolutely nothing that is outside of Nature. Nature is all there is and all of our explanations must come from natural causes.] Into what gap did my classmates unintentionally fall? They tried to do something that is a normal part of our everyday life, something that most of us do on a regular basis without even thinking about. However, this everyday activity does not have a plausible natural explanation. Here's what they did: they made a value judgment.
We make value judgments every day. We claim that doing 'this' is better than doing 'that.' We advise people that they should do 'A' rather than 'B.' Last night's class was no different. Some people claimed that we ought to let invasive species run their course. Others objected and said that we should curb the effects of these species. Anytime you make a claim that someone 'ought to,' or that you 'should,' or that one course of action is 'better than' another you are a making a value judgment. Very few people argue that we should discount value judgments. The controversy is in how we justify these value judgments. Let's take a quick look at how naturalists and supernaturalists justify making value judgments.
Supernaturalists, as their name suggests, make a claim to a standard that exists outside of nature to justify their value judgments. [Note: Supernaturalists believe that something exists outside of nature and includes many of the world religions including Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. Not everything has a natural explanation.] For example, Christianity justifies its claims that some actions are right (and thus better) than others on the nature and character of Yahweh. Buddhists call upon the 'Tao' (a pre-existent standard outside of space and time) to justify their judgments.
Naturalists, on the other hand, often have to rely on other philosophies to justify themselves. Many in my field rely on Darwinism to guide their actions. 'Survival of the fittest' is their battle cry. But this rationale quickly disintegrates when applied to human actions. Imagine if we used 'survival of the fittest' as a business model. We could justify industrial espionage, fraud, and even murder, because "hey, we're just trying to survive." This principle works in the animal world but not in human society. Other naturalists try to use humanism as a justification. They claim that certain actions are good because they bring relief to man's estate or will better ensure the survival of our species. But this just pushes the problem of justification back another step. Why should we strive to bring relief to man's estate or ensure the survival of our species? Just because? No acceptable answer has been presented to this author.
Without inciting some kind of standard outside of Nature there is no viable way to justify value judgments. If your philosophy cannot justify value judgments you have unwittingly given up your ability to make any value judgments at all. The inability for naturalism to justify value judgments should make those who hold to this philosophy reexamine their beliefs.
Literature Cited:
Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips and E. Losos.1998. "Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States." Bioscience 48(8): 607.
No comments:
Post a Comment