SuperTramp

                Besides being an absolutely gripping and liberating film, the film Into the Wild (to me) gives a glimpse into a man’s search for his essence. The movie seems to tug at the importance of minimizing what is not necessity from one’ self if he or she is looking to better grasp what it means to be satisfied. Towards the end of the movie, Alex (actual name Christopher) says something that for me captures an important element of this story, “The core of mans' spirit comes from new experiences.” The non-essential components that I mentioned just prior seem to beyond material things, rather one can look at what else composes the persistent clutter in our minds. At different parts of the movie, Alex seems to attack or be attacked by these several of these forms of baggage: reputation by distancing himself from particularly his proud father and changing his name which not only allowed him to slip away but distance himself from the agenda of his parents. One he had particular difficulty parting with his grudge against his parents for the situation that ensued from early on in their marriage. While I still have a hard time talking about what this young man might have been feeling, I think it wasn’t until the very end that this baggage was able to be removed.  

                So to conclude, Alexander Supertramp seems to tackle an ethic for a more anthropomorphic “sake” than our last film “The Cove.” Whereas the previous film posed questions about whether differences between the rights of humans and other organisms, “Into the Wild” remains, for the most part, within the realm of our own species. What the film seems to really focus on is the power and mystery that is unveiled by removing what is consuming him from living. While Alex did this partly by ridding himself completely from the contact his family, by allowing himself to distance himself from the grudge with his parents, he was able to forgive and really identify what makes them important to him.

Animal Ethic

After finishing the Cove, I went back and re-examined the ethical positions in Chapter five of DesJardin, particularly those of Peter Singer. The reason that I was compelled to go back was because I felt I had found the boundary of my animal ethic. I just needed to be able to articulate it and Singer seemed to be the closest on the ethical spectrum. Prior to this, I saw myself as being less “extreme” as either Singer or Regan. In the past, I would deer hunt with my dad every November, and over the years I ended up killing a couple. I certainly felt some remorse after the shot but it wasn’t enough to keep me from buying a tag the next year.

 Traditionally I only hunted with my dad and one other hunter. We hunted on public land and we were lucky to shoot one deer between the three of us, but we’d still have enough meat to last us for the better part of a year. This last Thanksgiving I was invited to join dad and almost a dozen other hunters on what would be a series of drives and the chances of shooting several deer were quite high. I turned them down and I never really thought why, that is, until Monday’s film and rereading Singer. I realized that there was a Singer-like motive behind my decision not to partake. I knew that my cousins from five to eight deer a person during that season alone (they are Native American). They often had plenty to feed their families and the village elders that they would be able to sell or trade a sizable portion of the harvest. To me, I felt going along with this group was approaching sport. Also, my dad and I still had leftover meat in the freezer from last year.

More than that, I believe I’ve carried this notion that the deer have a sentience to a degree well beyond the other creatures that I hunt (grouse or fish). Maybe I’ve just grown up on the notion that the deer and bear are majestic animals. There is a part of me, though, that thinks this is based on something more; an extra quality of life that I’m still trying to pinpoint. Either way, I feel I more clearly understand why I was deterred from the big deer drive or the dolphin capture and killing. For me, the decision whether or not to hunt is not only based on a particular level of sentience, but it needs to be in the wild and not be primarily out of sport or profit.

Land Ethic

In only three weeks I already see my own land ethic evolving. Actually, evolving probably isn’t the correct way to put this; I’d say my stance is materializing more than anything. I think prior to this I have never really sought to, in any real depth, outline what my values were with regards to the natural environment. I guess I’ve generally relied on instinct when making decisions relevant to this ethic and generally not think much more about it.

When I first read the definition of holistic ethics, I was convinced that this defined my ethical stance regarding the environment. I do believe that the world we live in is inhabited by life which is extremely interconnected. I cheered when my teachers began using the food web instead of the food chain as I have seemed to always believe that the “Designer” would have foreseen this potential flaw in the disconnected system (that being the food chain model). Instead what we seem to be a part of is a more complex and interrelated system. As opposed to other moral ethics, I do think that there is a right answer in how we treat our plant’s systems. To me, in many cases of a moral ethical situation it seems that there are benefits and consequences to any argument. In terms of treatment of our natural systems, it seems the more we interfere in its’ patterns and cycles, the worse off everyone seems to be. So it is my belief that the answer when it comes to decisions regarding the environment, the less alteration/impact on the system the better.

So it sounds like this would put me on the spectrum (anthropocentric, non-anthropocentric, holistic) on the holistic side, but I have trouble settling for this. While I believe very strongly that conserving wildlife and other natural systems is a top priority, my passion for this seems to be derived from my love of my fellow man a lot more than it is to save the birds in the trees. So I feel I am holistic in my land ethic with what seems more anthropocentric leaning.