Dear all,
I have
taken the initiative to a session (either a study session or more likely a
roundtable, depending on the interest) at the 12th World Congress of Semiotics (Sofia, Bulgaria, 16-20
September 2014) entitled "Biosemiotic ethics". Abstracts for
individual presentations can be sent directly to me. The description of the
topic of this session is as follows (see here for other proposed sessions):
***
Biosemiotic
ethics
A dozen to
20 years ago, two of the most central biosemioticians, first Jesper Hoffmeyer
and then Kalevi Kull, addressed connections between biosemiotics and ethics.
The last ten years a new generation of scholars have started working out a
biosemiotic ethics. The foundational idea is that if all living systems are
semiotic, then biosemiosis can serve as basis for justifying attribution of
moral status to human and non-human individuals and to various ecological
entities. Most of the scholars involved in this endeavor have taken Jakob von
Uexküll’s Umwelt theory as their starting point. Recent relevant publications
include a translation of Uexküll’s 1917 article “Darwin and the English Morality”, with a framing essay
entitled ““Darwin und die englische Moral”: The Moral Consequences of
Uexküll’s Umwelt Theory”.
Relevant
questions for discussion include but are not limited to the following: In what
ways does a biosemiotic ethics potentially take us beyond sentience-centered
approaches? Does biosemiotic ethics represent a new form of consequentialism,
or should it be placed within some other tradition? What ramifications do
different views on the semiotic threshold have within the context of normative
ethics? Is there (something akin to) normativity in the very constitution of
the Umwelt? Does the semiosphere at large (qua biosphere) have intrinsic value?
And what, in terms of biosemiosis, is the origin of value?
