Pratardana,
Below is an example of what you were saying about futility of the western legal enterprise: Why can't we file a complaint against Monkeys, do they not possess a 'self' same as us. Invariably, we find that "western" systems must always expand the parameters of their legal definitions to account for ever-increasing complexity, while we seem to handle complexity in stride and are not at all hampered by an all consuming need to define. Your note about Western environmentalism was also noted by Balagangadhara, whose extract I had posted above; this is an indication, of course, that you are on the right track in your thinking.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The contrast with Western ethical thought is again instructive in this regard. Ever since Homer, it has been a rather characteristic trait of Western thinking that moral phenomena pertained only to the domain of human intercourse. The relation of Man to Nature fell outside the scope of moral life: where it does enter into discussion at all, it does so derivatively in terms of, say, the consequences of such actions on future generations. Inanimate Nature, non- and quasi-sentient animals, on their part, could not enter into any moral relationship with human beings because they lacked the faculty or the capacity to âreasonâ (or whatever) by exercising which moral choices and decisions could be made. Morality came into play only when both the relata in the relationship were moral agents and Nature disqualified herself from being one. In the best of cases, Nature was indifferent to manâs striving to realize a moral world. At worst, she was hostile to such an endeavour.
This restricted scope of the domain of moral life has had the consequence that âtechnologyâ could not be considered as a moral action in itself. Technological action has come to be governed by criteria other than those that regulate moral action. To be sure, in the last decade or so, there has emerged a burgeoning domain of environmental ethics, which has seen it fit to challenge the predominant view. Discussing the wide variety of environmental philosophies and contrasting them with the unexpli-cated element from our world models is, however, beyond my ken at the moment. It suffices, for the moment anyway, to note this consequence.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Indian police hunt for monkey accused of stealing South Korean tourist's glasses</b>
LUCKNOW, India: Police combed the alleys of the Hindu holy city of Varanasi in northern India on Tuesday to search for a monkey accused of stealing reading glasses from a South Korean tourist.
Kim Dang Hoon filed a formal complaint against the primate that he claims broke into his hotel room and pinched his spectacles, according to investigating officer Inspector Govind Singh.
"It is difficult to trace the monkey but I am trying my best to locate the rogue," Singh said from Varanasi, some 300 kilometers (185 miles) southeast of Lucknow.
Thousands of wild monkeys roam Varanasi, dotting the trees on the banks of the Ganges River and scampering through the city's many temples, where they are venerated as manifestations of the Hindu monkey god Hanuman.
In his written complaint, Kim said he opened his hotel room window for fresh air when the monkey made his move. "He headed straight to the table where my glasses were kept and took it away," Kim said in the statement.
Part of the frame later was recovered by hotel staff and Kim said he filed the report so he can make a damages claim on his travel insurance.
Singh said he would be at a loss if his officers caught the culprit because there are no laws under which a wild monkey can be charged.
Problems with monkeys harassing tourists in the city were common, Singh said.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/17/...onkey-Thief.php<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Below is an example of what you were saying about futility of the western legal enterprise: Why can't we file a complaint against Monkeys, do they not possess a 'self' same as us. Invariably, we find that "western" systems must always expand the parameters of their legal definitions to account for ever-increasing complexity, while we seem to handle complexity in stride and are not at all hampered by an all consuming need to define. Your note about Western environmentalism was also noted by Balagangadhara, whose extract I had posted above; this is an indication, of course, that you are on the right track in your thinking.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The contrast with Western ethical thought is again instructive in this regard. Ever since Homer, it has been a rather characteristic trait of Western thinking that moral phenomena pertained only to the domain of human intercourse. The relation of Man to Nature fell outside the scope of moral life: where it does enter into discussion at all, it does so derivatively in terms of, say, the consequences of such actions on future generations. Inanimate Nature, non- and quasi-sentient animals, on their part, could not enter into any moral relationship with human beings because they lacked the faculty or the capacity to âreasonâ (or whatever) by exercising which moral choices and decisions could be made. Morality came into play only when both the relata in the relationship were moral agents and Nature disqualified herself from being one. In the best of cases, Nature was indifferent to manâs striving to realize a moral world. At worst, she was hostile to such an endeavour.
This restricted scope of the domain of moral life has had the consequence that âtechnologyâ could not be considered as a moral action in itself. Technological action has come to be governed by criteria other than those that regulate moral action. To be sure, in the last decade or so, there has emerged a burgeoning domain of environmental ethics, which has seen it fit to challenge the predominant view. Discussing the wide variety of environmental philosophies and contrasting them with the unexpli-cated element from our world models is, however, beyond my ken at the moment. It suffices, for the moment anyway, to note this consequence.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Indian police hunt for monkey accused of stealing South Korean tourist's glasses</b>
LUCKNOW, India: Police combed the alleys of the Hindu holy city of Varanasi in northern India on Tuesday to search for a monkey accused of stealing reading glasses from a South Korean tourist.
Kim Dang Hoon filed a formal complaint against the primate that he claims broke into his hotel room and pinched his spectacles, according to investigating officer Inspector Govind Singh.
"It is difficult to trace the monkey but I am trying my best to locate the rogue," Singh said from Varanasi, some 300 kilometers (185 miles) southeast of Lucknow.
Thousands of wild monkeys roam Varanasi, dotting the trees on the banks of the Ganges River and scampering through the city's many temples, where they are venerated as manifestations of the Hindu monkey god Hanuman.
In his written complaint, Kim said he opened his hotel room window for fresh air when the monkey made his move. "He headed straight to the table where my glasses were kept and took it away," Kim said in the statement.
Part of the frame later was recovered by hotel staff and Kim said he filed the report so he can make a damages claim on his travel insurance.
Singh said he would be at a loss if his officers caught the culprit because there are no laws under which a wild monkey can be charged.
Problems with monkeys harassing tourists in the city were common, Singh said.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/17/...onkey-Thief.php<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->