Hatley Discussion Questions 

1.       1.  In section one, Hatley draws our attention to the difference between our conception of morality within civilization (human morality) and our conception of moral laws in the context of the wild (which he calls “inhumane” – as in “not a violation of a moral law, but [rather] the sustaining of a natural order” (16)).  What is Hatley getting at here, and why does he put this into his opening premises?

2.       2.   On page 18 Hatley makes the observation that “the tendency within the philosophical tradition is to argue in some manner that my flesh, even if it is edible to the bear, also serves as the grounding for my own life, which is an end in itself transcending any reduction of it to a mere means.  The bear cannot feed on me, because that would be a reduction of me to an object for consumption.  Seemingly, my humanity would disappear, if my edibility to the bear became a morally significant category” (18).   After pointing out that eating another being, and understanding that as a mere means, is a mistaken conception, Hatley concludes that “the goodness of the relationship between the animal and the human is actually informed by eating the animal, by ingesting the inhuman.  And in doing so, one implicitly acknowledges the relationship not only can be reversed, but inevitably must be”(ibid).  Do you find this conclusion and his criticism of the traditional argument persuasive?

3.      3.   Hatley seems to see the problems between nature and man as a moral one that is defined by our “abhorrence of predation and … our implicit edibility” (19).  He describes the issue as a misunderstanding of edibility as a moral evil.  This a very unique approach.  Do you find this approach to be more helpful in bridging our demarcation between ourselves and nature? 

4.      4.   Hatley points out a paradox Rolston finds in his own argument for intrinsic value on page 20, how does Hatley use this and how does he interpret it to demonstrate the “goodness” of edibility? 

5.      5.   What is the Freudian “uncanny,” as opposed to the “Heideggerian uncanny,” that Hatley mentions in section 3?  What does it do for his argument?    

6.      6.   In relation to question five, see page 22 and the quote by Kelly Oliver.  What does this do for Hatley’s argument concerning boundaries in nature?  Is it convincing?

7.     7..  Interpret and critique Hatley’s term “Plethoric,” and consider how it is used to ultimately ground his entire argument.

8.      8.   What does the Plethoric condition necessarily entail about an ethic of nature? 

9.      9.   Do you find “that the uncanniness of our edible flesh lends us moral insight,” as Hatley suggests?  Or do you find it morally offensive and morbid?