“Surely, you don’t mean rocks”: Indigenous Kinship Ethics, Moral Responsibility, and So-Called ‘Natural Objects’

Native American and Indigenous Philosophy 24 (1):19-26 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

My focus in this philosophy paper is rocks. When I say rocks, I mean the solid mineral material that forms parts of the earth’s surface, otherwise known as pebbles, boulders, or a mountain range. Specifically, my aim in this paper is to detail the kinds of moral responsibilities that humans have toward rocks within an ethical framework of Indigenous Kinship Ethics. This responsibility is complex and contextual–like all moral responsibility–but complexity is not a compelling argument to dismiss ethical obligation. To do this work, first I overview the metaphysics of the force that drives moral responsibility with so-called ‘natural objects’: what I refer to as the relations-measure. Then, I detail the moral responsibilities that human agents have to rocks, as well as rocks have to human agents through a two tiers of humility model. I offer one example of relationality with rocks within Indigenous Kinship Ethics–the reverential role that Siedi rocks hold in Sámi culture, both in Sápmi and in the Sámi-American diaspora–to detail the kinds of moral responsibilities to rocks that Indigenous Kinship Ethics commits us to in pluralistic ways. Lastly, I discuss the implications of moral responsibility to so-called natural objects in global conversations on Indigenous Environmental Justice.

Author's Profile

Áila Kel O'Loughlin
North Hennepin Community College

Analytics

Added to PP
yesterday

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads since first upload

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?