Jotting #4 - Relative Ideas or Objective?

Question: Are your ideas about consumption and the environment relative or objective? Use examples from HARRIS to support your ideas.

My Answer: The issue of environment is one that I have more than average interest in. Growing up in a rural part of New Hampshire I have been exposed to woods and farmland my entire life. As such I recognize the need to preserve it. On the other hand I have also come to the realization that the need for wood and wood products will be around for many years to come. In regards to the environment I believe that my views are objective. In looking at the situation of the Tongass forest we see that there the possibility to harvest trees in order to fulfill the demand for wood and wood products. Ideally it may be the best option to remain out of the forest. However, that does not address the fact that the demand for wood products still remains. The Tongass can be forested in an appropriate manner. If the process is regulated that land can provide the same amount of lumber year after year without major disruptions to the natural habitat. If the lands were locked up and not allowed to be forested the demand would translate to another country where sustainable practices may not even be a consideration when going into a forest. The question of ethical relativism becomes more difficult for me when moving into other topics. For instance, “We hunt whales in order to preserve our heritage and survive economically. I do not hunt whales because there is no need for me to.” A similar worded statement is posed by Harris when discussing “Weak Arguments for Moral Relativism”. Before reading Harris I would have said that it is relative. However, Harris points out “the mere fact of disagreement over moral principles does not prove the truth of moral relativism”. This in turn sparked new questions in my head as I realized that I do not have a good grasp whether or not morals are relative. The fact that whale populations are low in population means that there should be a reduction in the number of whales killed every year. If the whales are killed all together than the whale hunters will have nothing left to hunt. In that sense my stance is objective. Life begets life and therefore there must be whales around in order for more whales to be born. However, the question of whether or not the whales should be hunted at all is another question all together. Whether my answer would be morally relative or not I do not know. “The arguments we have just given do not prove that moral skepticism is false, although they do cast doubt on the more radical versions of moral skepticism.”