Abstract
In this introduction to the special issue on Biosemiotic Ethics, we introduce major concepts and themes corresponding to the topic. With reference to Ivar Puura’s notion of “semiocide”, we ask: what are the ethical responsibilities that attention to semiotics carries? We argue that if life is fundamentally semiotic, then biosemiotics and moral theory should be explored in conjunction, rather than separately. Biosemiotic ethics becomes relevant whenever one complex of signs impinges on another; particularly whenever human sign usage impinges on the wellbeing or sustainable functioning of human or non-human semiotic agents. Stable coexistence of sign systems is far from inevitable, but it is a meaningful goal that can be pursued. In complex ecosystems, for example, certain types of coexistent relationships have evolved to share space despite competitive needs and expressions. We describe the ways in which authors in this volume articulate various justifications for the view that what is morally relevant is semiosis. Given these perspectives in a growing approach to understanding moral relationships, biosemiotic ethics has the decisive advantage of drawing on contemporary biosemiotics’ empirically-informed biological acuity within a rich semiotic framework.
Highlights
In this introduction to the special issue on Biosemiotic Ethics, we introduce major concepts and themes corresponding to the topic
With reference to Ivar Puura’s notion of “semiocide”, we ask: what are the ethical responsibilities that attention to semiotics carries? We argue that if life is fundamentally semiotic, biosemiotics and moral theory should be explored in conjunction, rather than separately
We describe the ways in which authors in this volume articulate various justifications for the view that what is morally relevant is semiosis
Summary
Two of the most central contemporary biosemioticians, first Jesper Hoffmeyer (1993) and Kalevi Kull (2001), addressed connections between biosemiotics and ethics. Connecting semiotic fitness and the interface of competing semiotic structures with moral value allows for self-reflexivity towards the way and means of sign usage, especially insofar as one complex of signs impinges on another Such considerations are relevant for better understanding what is lost when one culture conquers or absorbs another. Is it still possible to cultivate a “code of conduct for the semiotic animal?” Such an enterprise “would amount to a proper semioethics” (Tønnessen 2009: 78) This infectious growth of signs, both cultural and biological, gives rise to one way of understanding a (bio)semiotic ethic: as a human responsibility to ethically cultivate, harvest, and tend that growth of meaning in the world
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
