I’m assuming “gratuitive” is a new form of gratuitous? But do you mean “free” or “unnecessary” or both?
For more on peoples’ questionable appropriation of other animals, check out what goes on in the birding community:
(from the NY State mailing list)
Subject: Birding Conduct
From: "Shaibal Mitra"
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:32:56 -0500
Hi everyone,
I’d been following the latest birder conduct thread on this forum with a
variety of feelings, when I discovered that I was actually present at Cape
Vincent during the early stages of the controversial events of Sunday, 27 Feb.
I’m sure that everyone will appreciate that reading other people’s accounts and
depictions of a shared experience is almost inevitably a bit unnerving. Hence,
it is not surprising that some strongly worded point-counterpoint has ensued.
The emotions expressed in these posts (both condemning and defending the events
of 27 Feb) reflect people’s sincerely felt values, but they offer little hope
of resolution--partly, I think, because some of the values systems have been
stated either dogmatically, obscurely, or inaccurately.
There is one paradigm that seems to be shared by almost everyone in these
debates, even those who claim to be most at odds with each other—this is a
notion of “birds as commodities.” This value system is ubiquitous in our
society, is legally mandated in various ways, and is the basis for the diverse
senses of entitlement that people feel with respect to birds and other
organisms. I’ll confess from the outset that it makes me very uncomfortable.
The notion of wild organisms as commodities can be seen in its simplest quid
pro quo form when hunters pay carefully negotiated fees for the right to
collect carefully negotiated numbers of particular kinds of animals. It is also
at the heart of various (for us birders) hot-button topics such as captive bird
collections, falconry, and photography. Bird banding has been mentioned several
times also, and I suppose what people are referring to is the desire of some
banders to seek out rare birds for the simple pleasure of handling a!
n animal that is rare or new. Such a pleasure (which is actually not one of
the legally mandated justifications for bird-banding) certainly shares with the
foregoing activities an objectification, or commoditization, of wild birds.
But many birders who would never touch a feather or a camera are also fanatical
(if unconscious) adherents to the notion of birds as commodities. How else can
one explain some people’s sense of personal injury when they are not informed
of somebody else’s observation of some animal or another? Similarly, it is
clear that many birders feel a genuine and personal sense of injury at the
prospect of someone else killing, capturing, harming, harassing, or flushing
some bird of interest. Protests of this sort seem inevitably to be cloaked in
the guise of less selfish, more universal values (such as conservation, animal
welfare, or private property rights), but the associated emotion belies these
ruses--people’s outrage over what they perceive as other people’s poor behavior
is generally entirely out of proportion to what is actually at stake in terms
of damage to the environment, disregard of animal welfare, or violation of
property rights. Rather, people really seem to feel t!
hey are entitled to (variously) see, photograph, capture, kill, or eat
particular organisms that they deem somehow desirable.
When, on 27 Feb, a person approached us and announced she intended to walk the
edge of the woodlot toward the Great Gray Owl, I felt incredulous. I did not
feel outraged, indignant, or fearful that crimes against nature or private
property were about to be committed; I simply found it difficult to believe
that someone would behave so discourteously. So I left.
The reason I call this person’s behavior discourteous is because it was so
obviously contrary to that simplest tenet of civility--the Golden Rule of the
ancients and Kant’s categorical imperative--in which one strives to behave
toward others as one would have them behave toward oneself, or at least to
behave in such a way that could be adopted by others without conflict.
Most of the facts related so far concerning this person’s conduct have been
more or less accurate to my knowledge, but they have neglected a couple of
dimensions that I think are very important. The person’s original justification
for behaving in a way so contrary to what everyone else was doing was that she
had received explicit permission from the landowner. An additional
justification expressed after the fact is that none of us present objected to
her stated intention. We were actually aware that it was ok for birders to walk
around the woodlot, but had chosen not to. It crossed my mind to say, “By all
means, let’s walk toward the owl--I hope you don’t mind if I stay 20 yards in
front of you.” (I had longer legs and lighter optical impedimenta, as I recall,
so I feel confident that I could have beaten this person in a foot race.)
Instead, I offered an ironic comment that was later adopted by this person as
yet a further justification of her foray, “[I] courteously m!
entioned to ALL birders present that [I] had permission to enter the field and
intended to try to slowly approach the bird, at which point NO-ONE mentioned
that they had any objections, in fact some mentioned that it might be nice to
see the bird in flight if indeed that happened.”
Several people, in defending the person who approached the owl on 27 Feb, have
come to a curious (to me) conclusion regarding basic etiquette. After restating
the obvious (e.g., no irreparable harm to the biodiversity of NYS or the planet
was perpetrated, no animal was tortured or killed, no laws were broken, and the
minimum requirements of polite conversation were mouthed), these commentators
have concluded that it is impossible, and even inappropriate, to consider
people’s intentions. I couldn’t disagree more. To me, this is the crux of the
debate over courteous conduct, once the smoke and mirrors of conservation,
animal rights, and private property law have been cleared away. It has been
said that the goal of good manners is to avoid offending others
UNINTENTIONALLY.
Well, what might the person who approached the owl have intended? Did she
sincerely want to know how other people felt about her plan to approach the
owl? Would she have acted differently if someone had expressed discomfort? Did
she sincerely believe that none of the people already present might have liked
a closer view of the owl? If not, did she ponder their reasons for exhibiting
self-restraint? Would she have acted differently if others had offered to
accompany (or precede) here into the field?
To me, it was absolutely obvious that her ‘courtesy’ was strictly formal and
not genuinely motivated by concern for other people’s feelings. Her ex post
facto defense concludes with the following peculiar statement, “Bird
photographers have rights, too.” Are these rights exclusive to photographers,
or are they merely the same as those shared by everyone? If the latter, how can
it be considered courteous to behave in a way that you would prefer others to
desist from?
Sincerely,
Shai Mitra
|
For more on peoples’ questionable appropriation of other animals, check out what goes on in the birding community:
(from the NY State mailing list)
Subject: Birding Conduct
From: "Shaibal Mitra"
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:32:56 -0500
Hi everyone,
I’d been following the latest birder conduct thread on this forum with a
variety of feelings, when I discovered that I was actually present at Cape
Vincent during the early stages of the controversial events of Sunday, 27 Feb.
I’m sure that everyone will appreciate that reading other people’s accounts and
depictions of a shared experience is almost inevitably a bit unnerving. Hence,
it is not surprising that some strongly worded point-counterpoint has ensued.
The emotions expressed in these posts (both condemning and defending the events
of 27 Feb) reflect people’s sincerely felt values, but they offer little hope
of resolution--partly, I think, because some of the values systems have been
stated either dogmatically, obscurely, or inaccurately.
There is one paradigm that seems to be shared by almost everyone in these
debates, even those who claim to be most at odds with each other—this is a
notion of “birds as commodities.” This value system is ubiquitous in our
society, is legally mandated in various ways, and is the basis for the diverse
senses of entitlement that people feel with respect to birds and other
organisms. I’ll confess from the outset that it makes me very uncomfortable.
The notion of wild organisms as commodities can be seen in its simplest quid
pro quo form when hunters pay carefully negotiated fees for the right to
collect carefully negotiated numbers of particular kinds of animals. It is also
at the heart of various (for us birders) hot-button topics such as captive bird
collections, falconry, and photography. Bird banding has been mentioned several
times also, and I suppose what people are referring to is the desire of some
banders to seek out rare birds for the simple pleasure of handling a!
n animal that is rare or new. Such a pleasure (which is actually not one of
the legally mandated justifications for bird-banding) certainly shares with the
foregoing activities an objectification, or commoditization, of wild birds.
But many birders who would never touch a feather or a camera are also fanatical
(if unconscious) adherents to the notion of birds as commodities. How else can
one explain some people’s sense of personal injury when they are not informed
of somebody else’s observation of some animal or another? Similarly, it is
clear that many birders feel a genuine and personal sense of injury at the
prospect of someone else killing, capturing, harming, harassing, or flushing
some bird of interest. Protests of this sort seem inevitably to be cloaked in
the guise of less selfish, more universal values (such as conservation, animal
welfare, or private property rights), but the associated emotion belies these
ruses--people’s outrage over what they perceive as other people’s poor behavior
is generally entirely out of proportion to what is actually at stake in terms
of damage to the environment, disregard of animal welfare, or violation of
property rights. Rather, people really seem to feel t!
hey are entitled to (variously) see, photograph, capture, kill, or eat
particular organisms that they deem somehow desirable.
When, on 27 Feb, a person approached us and announced she intended to walk the
edge of the woodlot toward the Great Gray Owl, I felt incredulous. I did not
feel outraged, indignant, or fearful that crimes against nature or private
property were about to be committed; I simply found it difficult to believe
that someone would behave so discourteously. So I left.
The reason I call this person’s behavior discourteous is because it was so
obviously contrary to that simplest tenet of civility--the Golden Rule of the
ancients and Kant’s categorical imperative--in which one strives to behave
toward others as one would have them behave toward oneself, or at least to
behave in such a way that could be adopted by others without conflict.
Most of the facts related so far concerning this person’s conduct have been
more or less accurate to my knowledge, but they have neglected a couple of
dimensions that I think are very important. The person’s original justification
for behaving in a way so contrary to what everyone else was doing was that she
had received explicit permission from the landowner. An additional
justification expressed after the fact is that none of us present objected to
her stated intention. We were actually aware that it was ok for birders to walk
around the woodlot, but had chosen not to. It crossed my mind to say, “By all
means, let’s walk toward the owl--I hope you don’t mind if I stay 20 yards in
front of you.” (I had longer legs and lighter optical impedimenta, as I recall,
so I feel confident that I could have beaten this person in a foot race.)
Instead, I offered an ironic comment that was later adopted by this person as
yet a further justification of her foray, “[I] courteously m!
entioned to ALL birders present that [I] had permission to enter the field and
intended to try to slowly approach the bird, at which point NO-ONE mentioned
that they had any objections, in fact some mentioned that it might be nice to
see the bird in flight if indeed that happened.”
Several people, in defending the person who approached the owl on 27 Feb, have
come to a curious (to me) conclusion regarding basic etiquette. After restating
the obvious (e.g., no irreparable harm to the biodiversity of NYS or the planet
was perpetrated, no animal was tortured or killed, no laws were broken, and the
minimum requirements of polite conversation were mouthed), these commentators
have concluded that it is impossible, and even inappropriate, to consider
people’s intentions. I couldn’t disagree more. To me, this is the crux of the
debate over courteous conduct, once the smoke and mirrors of conservation,
animal rights, and private property law have been cleared away. It has been
said that the goal of good manners is to avoid offending others
UNINTENTIONALLY.
Well, what might the person who approached the owl have intended? Did she
sincerely want to know how other people felt about her plan to approach the
owl? Would she have acted differently if someone had expressed discomfort? Did
she sincerely believe that none of the people already present might have liked
a closer view of the owl? If not, did she ponder their reasons for exhibiting
self-restraint? Would she have acted differently if others had offered to
accompany (or precede) here into the field?
To me, it was absolutely obvious that her ‘courtesy’ was strictly formal and
not genuinely motivated by concern for other people’s feelings. Her ex post
facto defense concludes with the following peculiar statement, “Bird
photographers have rights, too.” Are these rights exclusive to photographers,
or are they merely the same as those shared by everyone? If the latter, how can
it be considered courteous to behave in a way that you would prefer others to
desist from?
Sincerely,
Shai Mitra
- alex 3-10-2005 4:52 pm