3 upvotes, 0 direct replies (showing 0)
As I've read, your article seems like you notice a individual moral impulse and see it being incorrectly applied to a different context of ecological morality. You make a corrective consequentialist transform to remove some of the presumptions, but the problem I see is that you keep making that same move and just end up at value accounting, which isn't a particularly strong point when other's values account differently. At some point, it would probably be a good idea to address the actual presumptions behind reasoning about an ecological system in a moral fashion. Even if not in an objective sense, then in some sense. I think on a reread of your article, you'll find that it really quickly moves from being analytical to emotionally defensive, transitioning around the luxury-necessity/harmful-harmless diagram.
There's nothing here!