Frederick Nietzsche wrote “The Birth of Tragedy” as his first major work. Roughly about ten years later he wrote a ten page assessment of his first major work entitled “An Attempt at Self-Criticism.” In this critique of himself Nietzsche discusses what he calls the “Socraticism” of morality, and of life itself. Nietzsche is attempting to save pessimism from its bad connotation that has received from a fearful society. “Is scientific scholarship perhaps only a fear and an excuse in the face of pessimism, a delicate self-defense against-the Truth? And speaking morally, something like cowardice and falsehood? Speaking unmorally, a clever trick? Oh, Socrates, Socrates, was that perhaps your secret? Oh you enigmatic ironist, was that perhaps your irony?” Is Nietzsche wrong for vilifying this “Socraticism” of morality and truth itself? Maybe, but his critique illuminates a serious epistemological quagmire with in the moral structure. Why is morality so sought after? Why do we choose to define ourselves through terms of morality?

Perhaps it is our desire to control ourselves through social means, or maybe it revolves around our spiritual inclination to want for metaphysical validation. Still, one thing is certainly true, it’s a utility device. Humanity uses morality to separate itself from the beasts. Aristotle began this mainstream adaptation with his assertion of human of function of reason. Since then humanity has reveled in its role as the “rational animal.” What has evolved is this categorizing of different sects of morality. Included in this evolution is the moral branch of ecology. The purpose of this essay will be to analyze why this evolution took place, and what implications it has for the human episteme. The purpose will not be to evaluate different ideologies surrounding ecology, such as deep ecology, or social ecology. The essay will attempt to assert the role of this moral evolution in terms of ascertaining epistemological certainties. (Nietzsche, “Attempt at Self-criticism”)

The implications of morality in ecology can be seen from many different angles. One such angle is somewhat of a contemporary phenomenon. This phenomenon is known as the Endangered Species list. This movement began in 1966 with restrictions upon the endangering of vertebrates and was expanded again in 1969. Finally in 1972, President Nixon felt it necessary to expand these restrictions to a more comprehensive, and in 1973 the Endangered Species Act. This progression from a mammal-based restriction program to the more comprehensive program represents the type of episteme that exists with in contemporary morality. It can be denoted to be an “us versus them” mentality, thus clarifying why mammals were recognized first as being a genre that needs special attention. However, to humanity’s credit, the special recognition was extended to all

existence of life. But to truly evaluate humanity’s moral fiber, it becomes important to actually analyze the list itself.

The United States Fish and Wild Life Service (USFWS) produces its “Threatened and Endangered Species list” in order to produce enforcement methods as to regulate these species fragile existence on this planet. On this list there are eight different categories that distinguish each species. Those categories are: Inverted Common Name, Scientific Name, Species Group, Historic Range, Where Listed, Listing Status, Critical Habit, and Special Rules. The category that this essay will focus on is the “Species Group” category. In this category there are ten different classifications. Those ten are: insects, fishes, mammals, reptiles, birds, clams, snails, crustaceans, amphibians, and finally arachnids. After collecting a test sample of 791 endangered or threatened species, it was noted that the top two quantities of endangered species were overwhelmingly mammals and birds, in that order. Out of the quoted 791 species, mammals occupied 313 spaces on the list. While Birds placed with 202 spaces on the list.

The total is an astounding 515 spaces out of a possible 791, for a percentage of sixty-five percent. As with all scientific experiments a control and variable are needed. In this case that role is filled by the insect population. Insects held a very weak fifty-two places on this list. This showing results in a meager seven percent of the total list. To give this data some context it now becomes important to understand this difference in quantity between birds, mammals and insects. Mammals are rumored to have roughly about 5,800 species around the planet. Birds have a slightly better showing with 10,000 species around the world. As for insects, they astronomically outnumber birds and mammals, totaling roughly 870,000 species through out planet Earth. Quick math will show that all bird and mammal species together only make up the quantity of two percent of all insects in the world. (wikipedia.org) (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html)

The implication of this study is pretty clear. Mammals and birds are pragmatically viewed as more important to human interaction in the world. To give this a bit more credence, the third biggest place-getter on the list were fishes. Fish, obviously, are another huge contributor to human sustenance and provide other essential elements to the high standard of human living. Still, there may be those critics who argue that habitat destruction is more prevalent amongst the mammal and bird population, however, this seems relatively unlikely considering the astounding disparity in species distribution of the Endangered and Threatened Species List. The next critique will be that humanity’s ability to ascertain information about insects is a lot more difficult. However, this argument is self-refuting, because it still denotes a species-centric mentality, based on humanity’s unwillingness to go further to find truth. In essence ecology breaks down to being the utility device to rationalize humanity’s domination over the animal kingdom. Humanity is purely self-interested, and perhaps rightfully so.

For years now, archeologists have been digging to find remains of past life. The one central motif behind all these finds is determining the route in which they became a “past life.” Why did the dinosaurs die off? What environmental changes caused the woolly mammoth to become extinct? The human purpose to this question is not to develop universal empathy for thesecreatures, but rather to ascertain how we ourselves can avoid a similar fate. In a similar way, the Endangered Species List is a way of categorizing humanity’s resource needs. We use this list as means to achieving the moral satisfaction of a “job well done,” yet in reality the list simply is pragmatic way of establishing humanity’s needs over the ecosystem’s. It is certainly not true that mammals are MORE important to the ecosystem then are insects, yet for purposes of human sustainability mammals are given preferential treatment.

There is another element to why it seems that a very large bias controls the Endangered Species list. That element is aesthetic motivation. Now obviously, there are some species of animals on the Endangered list that are not considered “aesthetically appealing,” however, like in the case before, probability speaks volumes. From first to last, here is the number of places each genre of animals occupy: Mammals, Birds, Fishes, clams, reptiles, insects, snails, crustaceans, arachnids, amphibians. Probably the most protected animal in the entire animal kingdom, both by the media and the regulators is the panda. And arguably the most aesthetically appealing animal in the kingdom as well. For example, the United States pays a rental fee to the Chinese government for the Pandas to stay in American zoos. Pandas are seen as majestic, mysterious animals that illuminate the bets of what nature has to offer.

The media plays a large role in establishing these aesthetic value judgments. Movies like “Bambi” engender an image of deer for example that they are to be revered. A cuddly, pretty animal, that exemplifies and embodies what it means to be innocent. Bambi is naïve, like our children are. Bambi loses his father, and we empathize with his situation. We become attached to this personified version of the deer. The deer is no longer just an animal, it has no crossed over into humanity’s heart of hearts. The deer is also an especially good example because deer is not overly consumed as a means of sustenance. Not like the chicken or the cow, the deer is pretty, thus its ability to be applied to the human sustenance pool is not as socially accepted.

On the other side of the spectrum is the movie “Arachnophobia.” This movie portrays the actions of a community when it is over run by the deadly “black widow” spider. The spider attacks outside, in the house, even in the shower. No one is safe from these creatures. And what’s even more terrifying? They’re too little to spot coming from a mile away. You never know the “black widow” is there until its too late. Either the spider bites you, or it’s too close for you to move away. Is it any wonder then that spiders or “arachnids” are the second least represented genre of species on the Threatened and Endangered species list? No, and further more it reflects the attitudes of the society in modern times. For example, I can distinctly recall watching this movie “Arachnophobia” when I was about 8 years old. I was petrified. I was so petrified that it satisfied my sense of curiosity to the point where I felt it necessary to watch the whole movie. I did not sleep for a week. It took me thirty minutes to take a shower because I was also looking over my shoulder. I remember getting shampoo in my eyes because I was too terrified to close my eyes while I was washing my hair. I was indoctrinated. I have been cognizant of spiders ever since. It’s a two-way mirror as well, yes the movie indoctrinated me, but it also reflected the age-old terror of spiders held by virtually everyone. So much so, that the fear of this spider is a common, vernacular term. This author could not tell you what the term to denote the fear of deer is, but my assertion would be that its not very common. It also must be stated for the record that deer present a threat to humanity (bucks anyway) due to their size, and ability to contract rabies from the surrounding environment.

Another glaring inconsistency in humanity’s moral attitude toward the

environment is the definition of what it means to be vegetarian. Veganism is described as “a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude-as far as is possible and practical-all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.” But this just a sect of vegetarianism, the more mainstream version calls for no eating of meat, but it’s ok and acceptable to eat fish. Why is this distinction so important? Because it illuminates first of all that there even should be a distinction between meat and fish. Fish are just animals that live in the water. Why is there environment change the outcome of them as a product? The answer again lies in utility and convenience. Fish are not like mammals. They live in a different place. They are different. They can breathe under water, while mammals will drown given the right circumstance. Water is foreign to humanity, and thus “different” and qualifies under the category of “them” in the transcendent dichotomy of “us versus them.” What this distinction truly represents is an ideology of morality. What is humanity supposed to extend those bounds to include? Humans? Mammals? Birds? Fish? All living things? This is the central question that ecology attempts to answer, yet it remains cloudy and undetermined. As with most cases of social construction, the fish/meat paradox is

perpetuated by language. The mere fact that humanity linguistically separates the words fish and meat implies a historical tradition rooted in this ideology. Both meat and fish provide similar sustenance for humanity, yet one needs to be distinguished from the other because it does not share the same similarities with humanity.

Two questions arise from these inconsistencies. The first is; what are the implications of such inconsistencies with in our moral ideology? The second is, should we be held morally accountable for these inconsistencies? The implications of these inconsistencies provide an important epistemological groundwork for evaluating morality as a whole. Humanity uses its resources in an exploitative way. That means that humanity is not concerned directly with the outcome of any species on the planet. Humanity IS chiefly concerned with maintaining their resources. As in politics, and social matters, morality is a tool. Ecology is no different, morality is used to rationalize the exploitation of anything that is non-human. The implication here is that ecology is seriously undermined. However, ecology in terms of its form is not diminished, because its ideal is not diminished. The purpose of ecology is to further understand the world as to sustain a healthy environment for all those who live in it.

The application of morality has tarnished this only from the angle that ecology has evolved into more of a bureaucratic structure. Deep Ecologists and Social Ecologists argue amongst each other, and then eco-feminism have their say, and as result a structure is born. Each sect of ideology brings with it its own version of morality, and thus compromising the original goal of ecology. While on

the one hand it seems that each faction of ideology is just part of the discourse that leads to some kind of truth, a more accurate assertion would be to understand these factions as intrinsically self-interested, and thus reflecting humanity’s inability to transcend its self-interest. This is ultimately the point, ecology while intended to understand the art of

sustainability, will always be compromised by what appears to be a perverse version of Darwinism.

The second question is ultimately what humanity is able to judge itself by. Are we morally accountable for being moral hypocrites? Ironically, “no” is the answer. We are animals. If there is a bigger assertion in ecology then I’m not sure what it is. We are no better or no worse then every other animal in the animal kingdom. Humanity’s ability to exploit the resources that other animals provide for us is just our means of survival. We are not an overly strong species, we cannot hunt naturally in the wild, our survival instincts are based around our ability to support each other and find ways to efficiently find sustainability. The adaptation of moral value is just trivial. It’s simply a way for our passions to dictate our reason , and this will not change anytime soon. In fact, it is probably fair to state that morality and philosophy really are rooted in humanity’s ability to become self-sufficient.

Once humanity was able to efficiently survive, it was able to have more free time to contemplate the world around it. Thus the illusion of reason, morality and philosophy were born. Humanity has been obsessed with finding objective truth ever since, and simply has been disillusioned into buying into this discourse. Morality and philosophy have become a means of self-interest. Philosophy is a business,

using moral theory to underscore the idea that it’s necessary for humanity to “philosophize.” Ecology, for better or for worse, is just simply a by-product of this evolution. The Endangered Species list and inconsistencies with in vegetarianism are just small examples of how survival needs have been masked to look like moral value.

Humanity needs to abandon its expectations of morality and understand that it is simply subjugated to nature of survival and self-preservation.