Roger Scruton

I saw that conservative philosopher, Roger Scruton, wrote a book called 'Green Philosophy: How to Think Seriously About the Planet'. The blurb says:

"The environment has long been the undisputed territory of the political Left, which has seen the principal threats to the earth as issuing from international capitalism, consumerism and the over-exploitation of natural resources. In Green Philosophy, Scruton argues that conservatism is far better suited to tackle environmental problems than either liberalism or socialism. He shows that rather than entrusting the environment to unwieldy NGOs and international committees, we must assume personal responsibility and foster local sovereignty. People must be empowered to take charge of their environment, to care for it as a home, and to affirm themselves through the kind of local associations that have been the traditional goal of conservative politics. Our common future is by no means assured, but as Roger Scruton clearly demonstrates in this important book, there is a path that we can take which could ensure the future safety of our planet and our species."

So what's this Scruton guy like? Is he a serious thinker? Personally, I think climate change and sustainability are social science problems more than science problems. We can't afford the political right to be antagonised against climate change and sustainability concerns as a reaction to them having become left-wing causes.

I've read some of his essays and his Very Short Introduction to Kant. I don't particularly share his politics and find some of his ideas objectionable, but he always gets me thinking.

The sort of conservatism he represents is about 40 years out of date. He has little in common with the current bunch of free-market idealogues. I would be interested to read his ideas on the environment, but suspect they will be antagonistic to just about everyone.

I have bought his book, but I think it will be a while before I read it. I saw him on a YouTube debate against Terry Eagleton, who is a left-wing academic (I saw in Waterstones that Eagleton had written a book recently on why Marx is right after all). It was all very urbane and not at all shouty. I get the impression Scruton is not a capitalist Tory, or a small government Tory so much as a gentleman Tory. It would be easy to imagine him as the squire or retired GP living in a twee country village somewhere. Much of his philosophy is on aesthetics. Still, he's a bright chap. He is able to clarlify other difficult philosophers for the less brainy. At the end of the debate with Eagleton, someone asked him a three-part question, and he was able to remember what they all were.

I have started reading his Green Philosophy book. For a philosophy book it is quite understandable. I think he makes some good points. He has read some of the same books from the Smart Thinking section as I have, plus some that I have noticed but not read. He still seems like a (market) town and country type Tory. He is not a neo-liberal. His views on environmentalism are different to mine. For example, he says gamekeepers are better custodians of the environment than NGOs. He says without them the game birds would disperse and vermin would take over. To me, gamekeepers are people who poisoned birds of prey, and protecting the environment is not about hunting, shooting and fishing. He does not think government organizations are well suited to protecting the environment, because they become bureaucratic and unaccountable for their decisions. He prefers associations such as the Women's Institute to single issue NGOs. I don't know how local associations of that sort could tackle a problem like climate change, but I think that comes later in the book.

Beneath his gentlemanly exterior, Scruton has a rather evil sense of humour. Here is his description of a pet rabbit:

Quote:

---

Alone in its cage, utterly dependent on the child who feeds it, bright-eyed and impassive as it is stroked and cuddled, the rabbit seems to be in its element: made for human companionship and basking in human love. It is the quintessence of the pet, mutely reflecting its owner's utterly fallacious view of himself as the kindly provider and justified guardian of this precious piece of life. A particularly syrupy by-product of this attitude—a children's book picturing rabbits in unctuous poses and entitled Guess How Much I Love You—is currently doing the rounds, having the same effect on human software as the I Love You virus on the computer.

As a matter of fact, however, rabbits are gregarious animals, for whom there is only one mental torture greater than solitary confinement, which is that of being cuddled by a member of a large rabbit-eating species. The pet rabbit learns to adapt to its conditions, much as human beings learned to adapt to Stalin's gulag. Being unable to shift its eyes, the rabbit maintains its generous stare even when held by a smelly omnivore emitting vile drooling noises and smiling down on it with a mouth full of teeth. Correct behavior is rewarded, after all, with a piece of lettuce. In this way the rabbit teeters from terror to terror and from day to day.

---

He gives his unconvincing argument against animal rights here: http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_...es-animal.html

I probably agree with him about the rabbit. I had one once and it was never very happy.

I am not sure his opinion of non-property owners is much higher than animals.

Scruton must know that Dawkins' title, The Selfish Gene, is a metaphor, so why does he pretend he doesn't?

Scruton thinks that people like anglers, gamekeepers and huntsmen are custodians of the countryside. Personally, I suspect the only reason their sports stayed legal so long is that they were enjoyed by people with the money and power to defend them. ****-fighting, bull-baiting and bear-baiting were all banned centuries ago. I don't suppose Scruton would legalise dog-fighting or badger-baiting. Stewardship by countryside property owners did not safeguard animals like the wolf, bear, beaver or elk in this country. Animals that prey on the animals they want to hunt or farm were hunted or poisoned to extinction. I suspect the only reason animals like rabbits, rats and mice survive at all is that they are so fast-breeding it was impossible to destroy them all.

I read today that Scruton thinks state organisations like The Forestry Commission and county councils have done a terrible job in conserving the environment. He said the rivers only started to be cleaned up once the anglers organised themselves into an association and started suing the polluters. This approach is only possible in a society in which tort law is applied properly and where the legal process is affordable. This may be true, but I would like to see more statistical evidence before believing it. No doubt Scruton thinks the inhabitants of low-lying island states, or of countries now more prone to drought should sue the emitters of CO2 (Scruton does not dismiss anthropogenic climate change). How on earth would they do that?

Sounds like he's using environmentalism as a platform to air his reactionary views. Not that he doesn't have anything useful to say, but it's disappointing when someone comes to a debate with another agenda. Naomi Klein seems to be doing the same thing on the left.

I don't have a problem with hunting, shooting and fishing, so long as it's done for legitimate reasons (i.e. not just for fun). Scruton is correct that humans are at war with animals. I kind of feel as if wild animals are fair game, but animals in captivity should be regarded as prisoners of war. To breed animals for consumption seems morally wrong to me. Surely producing a life to be used as a means rather than an end would be troubling for a Kantian like Scruton.

Scruton's idea that animals forfeit rights because they lack responsibility seems a bit odd - presumably he wouldn't apply the same logic to humans. His idea that an animal's experience of life is worth less than a human's is dubious. We have no idea how an animal feels. We can't even be very sure how our own minds work. The theories we have are constantly being revised, usually in favour of animals being a lot smarter than we thought.

I have been reading a bit more Scruton, and wondering when he is going to get to the point. How are we going to establish the English tort law system around the world, so that inhabitants from low-lying island states, or tribes people from the Sahel, can form civic associations and start suing the major carbon emitters of the world? How is a tribe from the Central African Republic going to take all the major emitters from China, America and everywhere else to court?

In the chapter I am reading now, he has started going on about the importance of beauty. This is one of him major themes in his other works, but all the same, this is a book about environmentalism.

I noticed he also dismissed James Lovelock's Gaia theory as scientific nonsense. The Gaia theory is another scientific metaphor. There is nothing teleological about it. It describes an emergent system. Lovelock has supported the theory with his Daisy World computer programs. Lovelock is a pretty clever guy. When Scruton can design and build a device, orders of magnitude more sensitive than anything preceding it, for detecting trace elements in atmosphere, then he can start to airily dismiss his theories. It's not as if Scruton and Lovelock wouldn't get on. They both love the English countryside and don't want anything to spoil the view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ladderandbucket

Scruton's idea that animals forfeit rights because they lack responsibility seems a bit odd - presumably he wouldn't apply the same logic to humans. His idea that an animal's experience of life is worth less than a human's is dubious. We have no idea how an animal feels. We can't even be very sure how our own minds work. The theories we have are constantly being revised, usually in favour of animals being a lot smarter than we thought.

---

Scruton believes in handing down your home and homeland across the generations. You inherit your home, environment, constitution and culture from your ancestors and pass them on, in good order, to your descendants. A person may not be responsible for his actions at any point of time, but it does not matter because either he has been a responsible person when young, before the dementia set in, or will be when he grows up.