Environmental Ethics

views updated

Environmental ethics

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that deals with morals and values. Environmental ethics refers to the moral relationships between humans and the natural world. It addresses such questions as, do humans have obligations or responsibilities toward the natural world, and if so, how are those responsibilities balanced against human needs and interests? Are some interests more important than others?

Efforts to answer such ethical questions have led to the development of a number of schools of ethical thought. One of these is utilitarianism , a philosophy associated with the English eccentric Jeremy Bentham and later modified by his godson John Stuart Mill. In its most basic terms, utilitarianism holds that an action is morally right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The early environmentalist Gifford Pinchot was inspired by utilitarian principles and applied them to conservation . Pinchot proposed that the purpose of conservation is to protect natural resources to produce "the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time." Although utilitarianism is a simple, practical approach to human moral dilemmas, it can also be used to justify reprehensible actions. For example, in the nineteenth century many white Americans believed that the extermination of native peoples and the appropriation of their land was the right thing to do. However, most would now conclude that the good derived by white Americans from these actions does not justify the genocide and displacement of native peoples.

The tenets of utilitarian philosophy are presented in terms of human values and benefits, a clearly anthropocentric world view. Many philosophers argue that only humans are capable of acting morally and of accepting responsibility for their actions. Not all humans, however, have this capacity to be moral agents. Children, the mentally ill, and others are not regarded as moral agents, but, rather, as moral subjects. However, they still have rights of their own—rights that moral agents have an obligation to respect. In this context, moral agents have intrinsic value independent of the beliefs or interests of others.

Although humans have long recognized the value of non-living objects, such as machines, minerals, or rivers, the value of these objects is seen in terms of money, aesthetics, cultural significance, etc. The important distinction is that these objects are useful or inspiring to some person—they are not ends in themselves but are means to some other end. Philosophers term this instrumental value, since these objects are the instruments for the satisfaction of some other moral agent. This philosophy has also been applied to living things, such as domestic animals. These animals have often been treated as simply the means to some humanly-desired end without any inherent rights or value of their own.

Aldo Leopold , in his famous essay on environmental ethics, pointed out that not all humans have been considered to have inherent worth and intrinsic rights. As examples he points to children, women, foreigners, and indigenous peoples—all of whom were once regarded as less than full persons; as objects or the property of an owner who could do with them whatever he wished. Most civilized societies now recognize that all humans have intrinsic rights, and, in fact, these intrinsic rights have also been extended to include such entities as corporations, municipalities, and nations.

Many environmental philosophers argue that we must also extend recognition of inherent worth to all other components of the natural world, both living and non-living. In their opinion, our anthropocentric view, which considers components of the natural world to be valuable only as the means to some human end, is the primary cause of environmental degradation . As an alternative, they propose a biocentric view which gives inherent value to all the natural world regardless of its potential for human use.

Paul Taylor outlines four basic tenets of biocentrism in his book, Respect for Nature. These are: 1) Humans are members of earth's living community in the same way and on the same terms as all other living things; 2) Humans and other species are interdependent; 3) Each organism is a unique individual pursuing its own good in its own way; 4) Humans are not inherently superior to other living things. These tenets underlie the philosophy developed by Norwegian Arne Naess known as deep ecology .

From this biocentric philosophy Paul Taylor developed three principles of ethical conduct: 1) Do not harm any natural entity that has a good of its own; 2) Do not try to manipulate, control, modify, manage or interfere with the normal functioning of natural ecosystems, biotic communities, or individual wild organisms; 3) Do not deceive or mislead any animal capable of being deceived or misled. These principles led Professor Taylor to call for an end to hunting , fishing and trapping , to espouse vegetarianism , and to seek the exclusion of human activities from wilderness areas. However, Professor Taylor did not extend intrinsic rights to non-living natural objects, and he assigned only limited rights to plants and domestic animals. Others argue that all natural objects, living or not, have rights.

Regardless of the appeal that certain environmental philosophies may have in the abstract, it is clear that humans must make use of the natural world if they are to survive. They must eat other organisms and compete with them for all the essentials of life. Humans seek to control or eliminate harmful plants or animals. How is this intervention in the natural world justified? Stewardship is a principle that philosophers use the justify such interference. Stewardship holds that humans have a unique responsibility to care for domestic plants and animals and all other components of the natural world. In this view, humans, their knowledge, and the products of their intellect are an essential part of the natural world, neither external to it nor superfluous. Stewardship calls for humans to respect and cooperate with nature to achieve the greatest good. Because of their superior intellect, humans can improve the world and make it a better place, but only if they see themselves as an integral part of it.

Ethical dilemmas arise when two different courses of action each have valid ethical underpinnings. A classic ethical dilemma occurs when any course of action taken will cause harm, either to oneself or to others. Another sort of dilemma arises when two parties have equally valid, but incompatible, ethical interests. To resolve such competing ethical claims Paul Taylor suggests five guidelines: 1) it is usually permissible for moral agents to defend themselves; 2) basic interests, those interests necessary for survival, take precedence over other interests; 3) when basic interests are in conflict, the least amount of harm should be done to all parties involved; 4) whenever possible, the disadvantages resulting from competing claims should be borne equally by all parties; 5) the greater the harm done to a moral agent, the great is the compensation required.

Ecofeminists do not find that utilitarianism, biocentrism or stewardship provide adequate direction to solve environmental problems or to guide moral actions. In their view, these philosophies come out of a patriarchal system based on domination—of women, children, minorities and nature. As an alternative, ecofeminists suggest a pluralistic, relationship-oriented approach to human interactions with the environment . Ecofeminism is concerned with nurturing, reciprocity, and connectedness, rather than with rights, responsibilities, and ownership. It challenges humans to see themselves as related to others and to nature. Out of these connections, then, will flow ethical interactions among individuals and with the natural world.