Judaism and Environmental Ethics Discussion Questions 2/27/06 - JenniferStephens

1. Even without reading the later detailed responses to this paper, do certain passages and references in Schwarzchild’s essay seem blatantly and unjustifiably narrow and stereotypical? If the answer is yes, is the author using this boldness for any literary or argumentative purpose?

2. Schwarzchild does not seem to afford nature any intrinsic or sacred value but rather describes it as merely relational to humans. Is this a strong enough distinction to describe Jews, or anyone, as unnatural?

3. Does alienation from and confrontation with nature necessarily bind us and make us dependent on our surroundings? Can we ever be made to be unnatural?

4. Would you invite Schwarzchild to a philosophy department picnic? Would you be too disappointed if he didn’t show up?

5. Given our readings from this week and previous weeks, are Ehrenfeld and Bentley too quick to put Judaism at "one end of a philosophical spectrum – the human-centered end – in which the human role in the world is that of careful stewardship"? ¹

6. The first and second paragraphs under the heading "historical context" admit to the inherent limitations of drawing ecological conceptions from Judaism’s past. Despite this submission, the authors still suggest we can find guidance to understanding humanity’s relationship to the environment, providing we "search the literature properly". How and why would this method provide a better result? Does this search bear the same epistemic limitations?

7. Extending from the previous question, what can be said of the ecological ideas that the authors sift from Judaism, listed as:

• If man does evil, nature reacts
• There is a definite order to the world ordained by God as part of creation – Nothing was created for no purpose or in vain
• You don’t get something for nothing
• Human dependence on nature²

Do these tenets necessarily represent either a dominion or stewardship relationship with nature?

Responses to The Unnatural Jew by Ehrenfeld, Ehrenfeld and Jeanne Kay (pgs. 283-288)

8. Ehrenfeld and Ehrenfeld ask, with the intention of criticizing Schwarzchild, how someone can write about something that they admittedly do not understand. Is this a good argument?

9. Ehrenfeld and Ehrenfeld make short reference to a number of other Judeo-Christian views/circumstances that they suggest might reveal a better environmental ethic. (pg 285, "Where are the articles about Christianity…and to apocalypse?") How might these topics provide a different view?

10. Kay makes a strong point that Schwarzchild’s references are limited given the rich background of Jewish thought that he leaves untouched, but is her claim of an explicit Jewish environmental ethic just as extreme and narrowly referenced?

______________________________________________________