SURVIVAL OR COMMUNITY: A CRITIQUE OF GARRETT HARDIN'S "LIFEBOAT ETHICS" BASED UPON PAUL TILLICH'S ONTOLOGICAL THEOLOGY

dc.creatorCONDIT, STEPHEN HUNTLEYen_US
dc.date.accessioned2007-05-09T19:31:58Zen_US
dc.date.available2007-05-09T19:31:58Zen_US
dc.date.issued1983en_US
dc.description.abstractAlthough specific articles by the biologist Garrett Hardin have been frequently cited there is a lack of critical analysis of them and of his position as a whole. Hardin's position has two basic problems: it holds survival to be the ultimate value and it views mankind primarily in biological terms. These problems lead to a rejection of traditional moral values, to an inadequate view of society and to a limited view of the nature of mankind which limits morality to the members of one's tribe. Hardin emphasizes survival as a value and a biological view of man to support the assumption that present generations have an obligation to all the future generations of mankind. A critical exploration of the influence of the works of Bridgman and Schoeck on Hardin's thought clarifies his presuppositions about ethics, society and the nature of mankind. This clarification, in conjunction with an analysis of the development of Hardin's thought from "The Tragedy of the Commons" through "Carrying Capacity as an Ethical Concept", reveals the inadequacies of his position. A review of the literature on obligations to future generations, a major concern of Hardin's, provides the groundwork for a consideration of the nature of moral community and suggests that a concept of moral community can ground obligations to future generations in a manner that appreciates the importance of biology while recognizing the human transcendence of biology through culture and while maintaining traditional moral values. This dissertation argues that community is a better ultimate value than survival. Building upon Tillich's theology, an alternative which avoids the problems in Hardin's position is constructed. Hardin's and Tillich's positions are compared by considering three elements of moral community: the spatial boundaries, the temporal boundaries, and communal being. The Tillichian position furnishes a better basis than Hardin's for dealing with the question of obligations to future generations and lays the groundwork for constructing an ecological ethic.en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_US
dc.identifier.callnoTHESIS RELI. 1983 CONDITen_US
dc.identifier.citationCONDIT, STEPHEN HUNTLEY. "SURVIVAL OR COMMUNITY: A CRITIQUE OF GARRETT HARDIN'S "LIFEBOAT ETHICS" BASED UPON PAUL TILLICH'S ONTOLOGICAL THEOLOGY." (1983) Diss., Rice University. <a href="https://hdl.handle.net/1911/15740">https://hdl.handle.net/1911/15740</a>.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1911/15740en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsCopyright is held by the author, unless otherwise indicated. Permission to reuse, publish, or reproduce the work beyond the bounds of fair use or other exemptions to copyright law must be obtained from the copyright holder.en_US
dc.subjectReligionen_US
dc.titleSURVIVAL OR COMMUNITY: A CRITIQUE OF GARRETT HARDIN'S "LIFEBOAT ETHICS" BASED UPON PAUL TILLICH'S ONTOLOGICAL THEOLOGYen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.type.materialTexten_US
thesis.degree.departmentReligious Studiesen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineHumanitiesen_US
thesis.degree.grantorRice Universityen_US
thesis.degree.levelDoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.nameDoctor of Philosophyen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
8314923.PDF
Size:
12.14 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format