Class #27:Hans Jonas, “The Altered Nature of Human Action,” The Imperative of Responsibility


Hans Jonas is arguing that technology has changed the way humans act. Before they acted different before modern technology .He believes that humans acted different before modern technology; therefore modern technology has created the need for an entirely new kind of ethic. Technology has changed the nature of action itself. Ethics is all about actions, a new kind of action means we need a new kind of ethic. Before modern tech, nature as a whole was unaffected. “Old” action before modern technology was limited to the present, confined to the present generation, did not have accumulative character, no large ripple effects; we could predict consequences of our actions. Before modern technology tech was a simple means to an end and still very limited. There was still this understanding that humans were smart and great, however nature was still more powerful. Innovation and the new coming of modern technology bring about “New” action. This “new” action has an accumulative character and no sense of capacity for larger. All ethics before modern technology can get away with being anthropocentric.
Jonas is advocating that we need a future oriented ethic; modern technology has changed everything and the consequences of our actions exceed us. The difference is this new theory has to be non anthropocentric. As the human race we have control over the future of the biosphere. This new ethic advocates for a kind of stewardship and for us a whole to change politically. We must take responsibility and be the voice for future generations, he states “ The nonexistent has no lobby, and the unborn are powerless, thus accountability to them has no political reality behind it in present decision making, and when the make their complaint, then we, the culprits will no longer be there.
            I think this article touches on important issues towards technology that we must take into heavy consideration today. For example out footprint on environment is now massive, and has been accumulating with each passing year, new action, and innovation. Our presence has dramatically impacted the world, not just for the next five ears, but actually the next hundred of years. I think Jonas’s proposition of a new ethic is a step in the right direction, however I don’t think there is a clear set of rules or actions that can clean up the mess we’ve made thus far. Here on out we must change our actions and take responsibility in the fact that; the state of the earth is in our hands. In terms of advocating for future generations, I don’t think we can develop an ethic that the will a hundred percent agree with, but I think we can develop an ethic to ensure that they still have a planet earth to call home.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kenneth Goodpaster: On Moral Consideration

Kenneth Goodpaster leads us through many principles and perceptions of different philosophers to tackle the overall question, “ to whom principles of morality apply?” In order to begin to develop an answer for this question, we must first understand the framework of moral consideration, and then proceed to the application of this framework. Goodpaster presents to us distinct viewpoints on the sorts of entities that can and should receive moral consideration. He believes that neither rationality nor the capacity to experience pleasure and pain are necessary conditions on moral considerability. Instead, the simple act of being alive, for Goodpaster is a plausible criterion in terms of moral consideration. He believes that the universe of moral consideration is more complex that just individual persons and their joys ad sorrows. Goodpaster begins to draw the distinction between rights and considerability. He believes that the notion of rights are more specific that those of considerbaili...
Read more

Class #23: Heather Davis and Zoe Todd, “On the Importance of a Date, or Decolonizing the Anthropocene”

Heather Davis and Zoe Todd point out the failure of the Anthropocene, as a name to be assigned to today’s epoch. The start date that is being chosen for the Anthropocene is mid twentieth century 1964.  They are drawing connections saying that the Anthropocene, is explicitly linked to the beginnings of colonization. By linking the Anthropocene with colonization, it draws attention to the violence at its core, and calls for the consideration of Indigenous philosophies and processes of Indigenous self-governance as a necessary political corrective, alongside the self-determination of other communities and societies violently impacted by the white supremacist, colonial, and capitalist logics instantiated in the origins of the Anthropocene. They feel that the Anthropocene betrays itself in its name: in its reassertion of universality, it implicitly aligns itself with the colonial era. Heather Davis and Zoe Todd propose a 1610 start date to coincide with colonization p...
Read more

Rolston, Duties to Ecosystems

Holmes Rolston talks about the separate duties that humans and organisms owe to the ecosystem through distinct lenses. He states that the apparent harmony in ecosystems is superficial. Like business, politics, and sports ecosystems thrive on competition. He talks about how environmental necessity involves conflict, selection pressure, niche fittedness, environmental support, etc. These section pressures will routinely drive adaptation and counter adaptation; therefor the ecosystem is forcing a check on competitions by forced cooperation.   He believes us humans need to see that, an ecosystem has no centeredness at all, and we ought to simply value organisms for their evolutionary journey and purpose. The members of the biotic community have no shared needs; each species is individualistic in the sense that they are focused on the needs of their own survival.   He further explains how an ecosystem is far from being a satisfactory community, instead it is rath...
Read more