Environmental Ethics
Recommend on Google+
Environmental Ethics is the relationship between human beings and the environment in which they live
ALAN MARSHAL
According to Marshall, over the last 65 million years there has been a natural ecological balance between the animate and the inanimate. However, over the last 300 years rapid industrialisation has led to a massive imbalance.
ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS TODAY
Today growing concerns about global warming (the effects of which global dimming, until now, has lead to a gross underestimation) underline the general acceptance that environmental preservation is an obligation both for present and future generations. However, it is the grounds upon which justifies the argument for or against preservation that is the subject of ethical debate, and this invariably includes the issue of non-human animal and non-animal rights.
There have been many attempts to categorize the different approaches to the justification of environmental preservation. Alan Marshall and Michael Smith are two recent examples, as cited by Peter Vardy in ‘The Puzzle of Ethics.’
For Marshall, three ethical approaches have emerged over the last 20 years:
LIBERTARIAN EXTENSION (DEEP ECOLOGY)
When human-rights are extended to non-human animals (Michael Smith termed this a bio-centric ethic, since it focuses on the rights of biotic entities) and possibly even the a-biotic and inanimate. This argues for the intrinsic value and inherent worth of the environment, hence it is also termed deep ecology (Naess and Sessions).
Naess and his collaborator, Sessions, (deep ecology) argued that humanity has no right to compromise the environment except to ‘satisfy vital needs.’
Ecological Humanism (Eco-humanism) falls under Marshall’s Libertarian Extension. This is the argument that all ontological beings have ethical worth on the basis that they exist. Andrew Brennan was an advocate.
ECOLOGIC EXTENSION (ECO-HOLISM)
Places the emphasis not on individual human rights but on the fundamental interdependence of all biotic and a-biotic components and their essential diversity. Lends intrinsic value and inherent worth to species or eco-systems or the environment as a whole entity, valuable in itself. This is the same classification of the category Smith termed eco-holism.
The Gaia Hypothesis
This category includes James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis; the theory that the planet earth or ‘Gaia spirit’ gradually alters its own geo-physiological structure according to some sort of imperative that ensures the continuation of an equilibrium of evolving inorganic and organic entities. The planet is characterised as a unified, holistic living entity with ethical worth, of which the human race is of no particular significance in the long run.
CONSERVATION ETHICS (SHALLOW ECOLOGY)
The only value that non-human animals and plants have is extrinsic, instrumental to the benefit of humankind. They are a means to an end – conservation is important for the welfare of current and future generations.
Conservation Ethics formed the underlying arguments by Governments at Kyoto in 1997 and the agreements reached in Rio in 1992.
HUMANIST THEORIES
Following the bio-centric and eco-holist theory distinctions, Michael Smith further classifies Humanist theories as those that require a set of criteria for moral status and ethical worth, such as sentience. This applies to the work of Peter Singer who advocated a hierarchy of value similar to the one devised by Aristotle which relies on the ability to reason. This was Singer’s solution to the problem that arises when attempting to determine the interests of a non-sentient entity such as a garden weed. See also his work on world heritage sites.
ANTHROPOCENTRICISM
What Humanist theories do not allow for is the fact that a system of ethics formulated form a human perspective may not be entirely accurate; humans are not necessarily the centre of reality. The philosopher Spinoza argued that we tend to asses things wrongly in terms of their usefulness to us. Spinoza reasoned that if we were to look at things objectively we would discover that everything in the universe has its own unique value. Likewise, it is possible that there is a bigger picture that we may or may not be able to understand from a human perspective.
Peter Vardy distinguishes two types of anthropocentrism:
Strong Thesis
Humans are at the centre of reality and it is right for them to be so
Weak Thesis
Reality can only be interpreted from a human point of view; therefore humans have to be at the centre of reality as they see it
PETER SINGER
EXPANDING CIRCLE OF MORAL WORTH (BIO-CENTICISM)
The ‘expanding circle’ of moral worth should be redrawn to include non-human animals. If we do not, we are guilty of ‘specieism.’
HIERARCHY OF VALUE
In his first edition of ‘Practical Ethics,’ Singer argued that because plants are non-sentient, a problem arises in trying to determine their interests in staying alive. Singer therefore developed a ‘hierarchy of value’ similar to that of Aristotle, according to the ability to reason.
Singer remained unconvinced by deep ecology. In his second edition of ‘Practical Ethics’ he conceded that, although the argument for the preservation of the environment may be strong, arguing for its intrinsic value is, at best, problematic.
WORLD HERITAGE SITES (HUMANIST ETHIC)
Singer argues that as the unspoilt parts of the world diminish, they acquire a ‘scarcity value’ that argues for preservation as a bequest for future generations. These areas should be referred to as ‘World Heritage’ sites and have been inherited from our ancestors so should be left for future generations to enjoy. It should be left up to them to decide whether they choose to enjoy the unspoilt country or urban landscape.
The tropical rainforest for example is a very specialist ecosystem; a climatic climax vegetation that has taken centuries to evolve. Clearing the rainforest to develop farmland often fails due to the soil conditions, and once destroyed the rain forest may never be replaced.
RIGHTS OF NON-LIVING ENTITIES
The philosopher Bernard Williams reasoned that inanimate entities can have interests but do not have experiences.
For Singer however, the two concepts are conflated. For an entity to have an interest it must be capable of having an experience. Singer argued that because plants are non-sentient, a problem arises in trying to determine their interests in staying alive. Singer therefore developed a ‘hierarchy of value’ similar to that of Aristotle, according to the ability to reason.
RIGHTS OF NON-HUMAN ANIMALS
All sentient creatures clearly have the capacity to experience and ultimately do have interests. We can begin to understand what these interests might be e.g. food, water, comfort and affection.
Christianity and Environmental Ethics
ARISTOTELIAN THOUGHT
The life work of St. Thomas Aquinas attempted to bring Aristotelian thought in line with the Christian doctrine. Aristotle formulated a hierarchy of living organisms according to the ability to reason.
CREATION STORY
In the creation story it is clear that the planet has been given to humanity and humanity has control. This can be interpreted in three ways:
• Adam is given dominion over every living creature on earth. The notion of dominion includes responsibility – hence many Christians believe they are called to stewardship and should act as ‘stewards’ of Gods creation.
Genesis 1:26
“Let us make man in our image, in our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air”
• The hard-line approach is that the world is a gift from God for the sole use of humanity – we may do what we like with it. Some biblical interpretations of Genesis 1:26 use the term ‘mastery’ in place of ‘dominion.’ This illustrates this idea.
Psalm 115
“The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth he has given to man”
• Creation is a gift from God to be enjoyed ‘in partnership’ with its fellow inhabitants. It is different from the gifts received at Christmas and birthdays, since everything ultimately belongs to God, and God still has sole ownership of creation.
Psalm 24
“The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world and all who live in it”
Utilitarianism and Environmental Ethics
Utilitarianism is difficult to define as a single theory since it is more of a family of theories with different variants. Some Utilitarian approaches therefore are more satisfactory than others when it comes to applying them to environmental ethics. An example follows to demonstrate this:
Qualitative Utilitarianism
• Act-consequentialistic
• Places emphasis on the collective good of society
• Its theory of goods is hedonistic with special weighting given to higher pleasures (J.S. Mill)
• Its community is inter-generational
Qualitative Utilitarianism thus deduces that the moral course of action is the maximisation of higher pleasures for present and future generations. It is worth noting that Mill puts the enjoyment and study of nature at the top of his list of the higher pleasures – therefore environmental preservation is imperative.
Preference Utilitarianism
• Rule-consequentialistic
• Places emphasis on individuals
• Its theory of goods is concerned with preference satisfaction
• Its community includes only the immediate generation
Preference Utilitarianism thus deduces that the moral course of action is the maximisation of preference satisfaction for the current generation. Assuming that neglecting the environment bears no immediate effect on the current generation, the case for environmental preservation is weak.
In ‘Practical Ethics,’ Peter Singer cites an example in which he compares the benefits of building a hydro-electric dam across a gorge that would create employment, stimulate economic growth and provide a cost-effective energy supply with the associated costs. Such costs would include the loss of a beauty spot favoured by walkers, a good spot for white-river rafting and the destruction of a habitat for some endangered species and wildlife.
For the Preference Utilitarian, the preference satisfaction of a cheap source of electricity to provide power for all of our modern-day requirements outweighs the preferences of the walkers, white water rafters, and the non-human animals. For the Qualitative Utilitarian however, the long term interests of future generations out-weight the short-term costs of higher energy conservation.
Environmental Virtue Ethics (EVE)
Environmental ethics seeks to examine human relationships within the nonhuman natural world. In the past the focus has been on the anthropocentric theories based on duty and consequences which has made environmental ethics both incomplete and unbalanced. Environmental ethics calls for a non-anthropocentric theory of value that looks at our relationship with natural entities and eco-systems objectively. EVE is an emerging approach to environmental ethics of the last 50 years that meets this challenge.
An extension of Virtue ethics, an agent-centred morality deriving from Aristotelian thought which has become more popular in recent years, EVE asks the question; not why environmental preservation is important for mankind but what characterises an environmentally good person. It shifts emphasis from duty or consequences to who we are and how we are to live in the natural world.
Traditional environmental ethics, as well as being incomplete, is unbalanced. This is because it does not fully address how environmental issues rebound on us and shape the kind of people we are. EVE theorists see a virtuous life in nature as a necessary condition for human flourishing and progression towards Aristotle’s state Eudaimonia. To achieve Eudaimonia one must exercise and develop virtuous qualities that are most productive for society and now the environment. Extremes of behaviour – a vice of deficiency or excess are unhelpful to society and the environment. A virtue is found in the golden mean, and EVE attempts to explore the virtuous qualities that are required to live a flourishing life in nature.
blog comments powered by Disqus
RELIGIOUS STUDIES TEACHER RESOURCE NEWSLETTER
Sign up for tutor2u's free Religious Studies Teacher Resource Newsletter
