Ethics presupposes deontology

I thought this sounded very succinct (subject, verb, predicate). Maybe "deontology" isn't the right word. Ethics presupposes a priori judgments in order to advance consequent moral contensions, and without those there is no basis for any ethical consideration. This is not to say that there aren't contingent ethical situations, but that those are based upon premises that rely on an a priori moral presupposition. This phrasing seems obvious and ostensibly unoriginal, but I thought it was a quick and easy way to state it.

4/16 update: I originally meant to put this remark in, but it's at least mildly interesting to look at this statement as a response to ethical relativism and do the math from there.

Donkey voting

I've been feeling kind of down for a while on the nature of campaigning for political events. I think it's mostly because people are going about this in a way that should be used to entice people to purchase a product that they may or may not care about, not to get them involved in significant (or at least somewhat significant) political matters. Personally, I prefer the grassroots take on things rather than the beauty pageant or Coke vs. Pepsi approach.. unfortunately it doesn't always work out.

Anyway, I found this on Wikipedia through an article on compulsory voting. In Australia, where voting is compulsory, apathetic voters simply rank the boxes numerically from top to bottom.
1. "Donkey vote" on Wikipedia

Even with the 2004 presidential election there was a tremendous effort to get people to the polls (e.g. "Choose or Lose", "Vote or Die"), but the heart of the act of voting shouldn't be simply casting a vote, it should be the affirmation or negation of the issues themselves. It might be better said that we should reexamine what we want out of a democracy. By "democracy", we imply that we want the will of the people to be reflected in government (which usually occurs pluralistically), but we should also consider that the will of inattentive citizens isn't usually productive, and it could be argued that if they were attentive that they would likely have different views, which may or may not be reflected by the views of other attentive citizens.

Essentially the question would be: in the ideal democratic state, would it be best that (a) all citizens participate in the act of voting or that (b) only the informed citizens participate. I think the choice is rather clear-cut in favor of (b). To not be representing a perhaps significant slice of the population isn't a violation of democratic values, because the freedom to be attentive still remains, it's not neglecting those people, but rather they're apathy doesn't actualize in the form of arbitrary "donkey votes" come polling time.

Consequently, I think that people should focus on developing and encouraging attentiveness more so than encouraging people to vote, but because such an issue wouldn't have many particular objective-oriented organizations behind it, it would most likely need to be a grassroots effort or brought forth socially...

People have the right to not care about something, but we shouldn't be holding them to express those views of indecisiveness through voting, because, to me, that seems to be the definition of self-defeating. If one chooses not to vote, it can be a "productive" (in the sense of not being counterproductive) action-- they are leaving the decision up to those who actually have a handle on the issue, rather than skewing the results arbitrarily.

4/16 update: The problem with an effort to restrict the voting process is that it could logically be built up and become further and further restricted-- essentially a slippery slope. Since it is best when the votes are cast only by attentive voters, it would be better if they were cast by more informed voters. Practically, this could only be verified to a much lesser degree, but it would reduce the body of voters down to a single person or an elite handful, and likely give way to the pleasantries of totalitarianism. Consequently, I'm inclined to assert the the choice to not vote is a subjective/social one. I don't think it should be formally instituted, even though I often talk about how it should be mandatory for voters to attend debates between the parties they are choosing between.

Hapless poetry 4

In the rain
In the rain
The raindrops tick
As they strike the grout
And shatter like plates
As they break the surface,
Clattering.

The eyes are tracing
Eyes like silhouettes,
The raindrops,
Contorting, retracing
Divergent paths like the limbs
Of dancing trees,
Tattered.

In the rain
In those eyes
Beneath the tickmarked
Pattering troughs
Lay heavy thoughts that soak
And rattle
Remittently.

Blind and tame
Beneath searing bright eyes
That tilt and gently glide--
A sight without seeing,
The rose of the line,
Strewn thoughtless and open
Like silhouettes against empty sky.

Branching arms, like veins
Lost behind the watercolored
Lakes, palpitating.
The raindrops.
The subtle percussion.
The eyelids blinking in time.

In the rain
In the rain,
In the frantic, the spattering--
When outlines no longer remain,
Cleansed by the rain
Against the rain
They collapse.

Extinction and anthropocentric ethical theory

1. Humans spur worst extinctions since dinosaurs: UN
2. Life's diversity 'being depleted'

I think there's some kind of paradox involved with ethics that extend outside the domain of the humanistic in a way that is similar to the argument that claims all people are selfish (i.e. the altruistic care for others because of the gratification that it gives them to be altruistic). Similarly, most people could be seen as caring about nature because of its effects on us a species, and when we go beyond this and seek out naturalism we are reminded that we are not outside of ecology, but that we would, in a natural setting, have our own proper place in a proper ecological niche. In this way we are greeted with an almost dialectical ambiguity. To do what is best ecologically is to be within the realm of naturalism, and to do what is in the realm of naturalism implies that we recognize our role as a species, and in doing so accept its inclinations and prejudices. Animals look out for their best interests collectively, but their family and species have the immediate priority. Daniel Quinn would say that the difference is that in the state of nature animals don't eliminate their competition in order to further their familial or special (?- specie-al) prosperity and in turn allow their numbers to grow beyond what the natural carrying capacity would allow, but at the same time I don't think that a single caveat would eliminate my uncertainty on the matter.

A non-anthropocentric take on ethics by definition would place the immanent priority on the collective interaction between species, which to many would seem ludicrous (e.g. "The elimination of insects through pesticides is unethical because it kills mindless bugs when it allows existing humans to meet their food supply demands and prevent starvation?"). It follows that because the push for ecology is either in the interest of our personal well-being (viz. our impact on ecosystems that in turn affect us) or in the pursuit of naturalism (at which point we must resume our role that immanently places priority on the benefaction of our species), a sensical non-anthropocentric ethical theory would have to be (1) pretty creative, and (2) perhaps even not truly "non-anthropocentric", because we would have to be outside of our subject to appropriately make such determinations.

At this point I'm not quite sure what logically follows. Personally, I would like to embrace some degree of intrinsic value in other species and ecological systems (viz. deep ecology), while maintaining that humans can remain at least as prosperous (in a human utilitarian sense) as we are now in doing so, which seems to be apodeictically false. To reject the former qualifies me in the anthropocentric, to reject the latter places me into the direction of something that is popularly deontologically immoral (not accepting human life as the greatest earthly good). Maybe I could turn to an axiological judgment centering around sustainability which places its ethical qualifications in the long-term humanistically and ecologically, as well as ecologically in the short term. It doesn't quite resolve the paradox as much as sidestep it and go in a different direction.

5/1 update:
This doesn't make sense.

Antarctica...

1. Antarctic ice is shrinking: NASA
2. Shrinking Antarctic ice proves scientists wrong
3. Antarctica Cannot Replace Ice Loss

Mechanisms to promote positive ecology

I've only been able to come up with four:

(1) Voluntary: Producers/companies voluntarily adjust their outputs and means of production in favor of what they deem environmentally responsible. This isn't promoted in the free market, it makes them uncompetitive unless there is a demand for their products by educated consumers due to their practices.
(2) Consumer demand/activism: This kind of meshes in with the former one. Consumer-activists macroscopically place demand on products that are created in an ecologically "ethical" fashion. This would require an unheard sense of consumer awareness (as well as a popular demand for environmentally "ethical" practices) and probably some transparency on the part of producers.
(3) Legal restrictions: Governments formally place restrictions on producers/companies and designate land for environmental purposes to be excluded from the market (state-owned). I guess I could see private projects akin to "national parks" but I think it would be generally easier to approach the matter governmentally.
(4) Green taxes: Externalities are somehow incorporated into production costs through taxes. Wow- this would be hard.. but not impossible.

So as to which one or combination of these would be the most favorable, I think (1) can be ruled out for the reasons given--voluntary consideration could happen in an ideal world, but not a modern capitalist one... unless green taxes were in the picture and kicking.

I'm kind of thinking (2).. but that would be a hardcore grassroots effort. And then of course, land management would undoubtedly need to be handled through the state.

I need to narrow my focus to decide between formal (legal restrictions/taxes) and social means. I'm not sure on what grounds they should be judged. If anyone has any suggestions I'm open to them, if not I'll address it whenever I dig myself out of the hole I just made.