Environmental Ethics

What is environmental ethics?
1. It considers the major concerns about the environment and evaluates these against the various ethical theories and the other ways in which the environment is shown to have value.
  1. It considers the relationship between humans and the natural world and how and why we make decisions about the environment.
Key Issues in environmental ethics
1. The main approaches to environmental ethics: Anthropocentric - human centered 'green light' (Aquinas, Kant or Bentham), Biocentric - life centered, shallow ecology 'mid green' (Singer), Ecocentred - plant centered, deep ecology (Arne Naess or James Lovelock)
  1. Main issues: Does the environment have intrinsic or instrumental value? What is humanity's relationship to the environment, should humans dominate and use natural resources for their own good, or enable natural resources to flourish, or preserve them? To what extent do future generations need to be considered when making decisions about the environment?
    1. What is the status of animals? Do they have the same rights as humans and therefore should humans strive to protect them? Are all living things, ranging from people to plants, of the same moral value?
Religious Approaches
1. Dominion and/or stewardship?
  1. The Bible appears to imply that humans can do what they want because the Bible states that nature was the inanimate creation of God.
    1. The word 'dominion' in Gen 1 have paved the way for exploitation. God made man 'in his image', this gives humankind dominion (authority, humans are the peak creation)
      1. Aristotle influenced Aquinas to continue the view that the human species are the only morally important beings in inhabit the earth; Aquinas maintained that all animals are naturally subject to man.
        However it is incorrect to interpret as dominion as rule over and therefore that we can do what we like? Should it not mean we have responsibility to ensure the world is cared for because it belongs to God? Gen 2 states God put man into the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
        This implies that humankind has the role of stewards. Stewardship sees humans as the peak of God's creation but only in as much as they are considered to be the creatures who God has selected to regulate the response of the natural world and to its creator.
        Humans have 2 roles: to conserve and care for creation, and to act as the director of nature's obedience to God.
        Adam and Eve's disobedience in Gen 3 (The Fall) is seen by some as explaining why we are experiencing environmental problems. It is from that moment that humans became poor stewards.
        Christians believe that creation is intrinsic value and reveals God, but it also reveals human sin through our bad treatment of the world. But using creation well and respecting it restores human's relationship with God.
Evaluating a Christian Approach
1. Humans are stewards - responsible to God for their use of God's creation. Technology and science are not intrinsically bad because God works in and through nature.
  1. Christians can be called to reject lifestyles that disregard and damage God's creation. Creation has value in itself and reveals God.
    1. The teachings in the Bible state that humans must observe environmental justice. However, the Bible is accused of encouraging human domination and exploitation. People have moved from nature-centered religions to a religion where God demands dominion over nature. The ecological crisis will be solved only when the Christian view is rejected.
      1. Some philosophers criticise Judaeo-Christian tradition for placing humans at the moral centre. Genesis shows God commanding Adam and Eve to multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, but revised beliefs show that Christians should be stewards not manipulators.
Secular Approaches
1. Shallow Ecology
  1. Believes that the environment is important and should be looked after only if it benefits humans. The environment had instrumental values - its value is dependent on what it can do for humans.
    1. Conservation ethics is a form of shallow ecology. Conservation looks at the use, allocation and protection of the natural world in order to help the survival of the human race.
      1. A person might individually choose to recycle their waste because these actions would help them. Biodiversity should be preserved in order to ensure the survival of the human race.
        This means that shallow ecology would accept environmental damage if humans benefit from it. Yet it could also mean that if preservation of the rain forests is proved to be good for humans then this is what should happen.
        Neither animals nor plants have rights - any respect shown to them depends on how humans may benefit. Shallow ecology is anthropocentric.
        EVALUATION: Shallow ecology allows species to die out if the cost of preserving them is too high. Making human welfare central may benefit the human population, but in the long term may create problems.
2. Deep Ecology
  1. Arne Naess began the deep ecology movement in the 1960s and believed that nature has a value of its own. He gave the example of a mountain which has a 'dignity' which shouldn't be violated for the sake of humankind.
    1. Deep ecology believes that the flourishing of human and non human life has intrinsic value contributing to the realisation of these value which are also values in themselves.
      1. In other words, its teaches that reverence for life and celebration of diversity are an intrinsic good in themselves. The environment is preserved for its own sake (not just for the sake of humans)
        Naess thinks humans should reduce their population, abandon the notion of economic growth, conserve diversity and live in small self-reliant communities.
        EVALUATION: It is difficult to justify the claim that not only people and animals, but plants and even rocks have rights. How is one right balanced against another? Who guarantees the rights?
        In post-industrial society the idea of going back to a simpler time is romantic and impractical. Human population is increasing and humans have as much right to reproduce as much as other animals.
Eco-holism: the Gaia hypothesis
1. James Lovelock was acutely aware of the inter-connectedness of all matter - especially at the subatomic level. He argues that it was quite wrong to consider the Earth to be inert but in some ways alive.
  1. He likened the relationship of the atmosphere and living beings to the bark of a tree: although the bark is inert, without it the tree cannot live; but without the tree there would be no bark. Gaia is therefore more than just principle but describes the vital energy of nature.
    1. In his study of other plants he asked the question why was the earth different from them? What was happening upon the earth which enabled the maintenance of such an unlikely combination of chemical gases.
      1. What complex processes are at work within the earths atmosphere - and have occurred for billions of years - to explain this uniqueness. Lovelock believes that the Earth itself is part of the life supporting biosphere. It is not just a question of everything relying on everything else (circle of life) but that the plant itself is alive.
        The earth is self regulating. Human existence may be destroyed by Gaia's survival mechanism so that the environmental damage which threatens planetary survival will stop. Unlike religious systems the Gaia hypothesis seriously questions whether human life is dispensable in the great scheme of planetary survival.
        This implies: Either the earth is more complex, and the potential problems are more severe, than we think; the earth's inbuilt controls are delicate, and can respond to natural fluctuations in conditions, but the artificial fluctuations are overloading the system - CO2 emissions.
        Therefore, for a purely utilitarian principle, it is for our greatest good that we reduce these emissions and release the pressure on the environment.
        Or the Earth will compensate for the load placed on it by human industrial activity. We have only a limited influence on the planet. The life forms that currently occupy the planet are only of incidental importance. The microbiological foundation for life is far more important. Life in some form will survive but the human race may not.
        The Gaia hypothesis accepts evolution but Lovelock believes that organisms also contribute to change in the environment so that the organisms and the environment become inter-dependent and they evolve together.
Evaluating Gaia Hypothesis
1. The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins argues that it seems inconceivable that life should 'club together' for a mutual advantage, especially when evolutionary theory shows that the biosphere is engaged in a 'survival of the fittest'.
  1. Peter Singer, maintains that while life forms can have value as part of the biosphere, only sentient life has intrinsic value. Other organisms, such as plants, cannot truly be said to desire to flourish or have experience - they are non - sentient, however, plants do go to extraordinary lengths to procreate,
    1. It is argued that the fate of one species is dependent on that of all the other species, so it is difficult to say exactly what the long-term effect on humankind might be as a result of the general change in the biosphere.
      1. Gaia is not telelogical and only seeks to maintain the equilibrium of the earth, however the conditions which favour one organism may not favour another, which does simply imply genetic adaption.

Next up

Environmental Ethics

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Rosie Evans almost 8 years ago