Download ecological philosophies

ECOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHIES
Gathered from various sources by Alfred Snider
Anthropocentrism
A term from environmental political philosophy denoting a
human-centered ethical system, usually contrasted with
ecocentrism. The question of the distribution of value across
human and non-human nature has been one of the central
preoccupations of environmental ethics over the last 30 years.
The anthropocentric belief is that human beings are the sole
bearers of intrinsic value or possess greater intrinsic value than
non-human nature. It is therefore acceptable to employ the
resources of the natural world for only human ends—a view that
has come in for sustained criticism from ecocentric philosophers,
who argue that it amounts to little more than a species bias, or
‘human racism’.
Recent ecological defenses of anthropocentrism claim that an
anthropocentric ethics is adequate to the task of grounding care
for the natural environment. A sufficiently complex or enlightened
understanding of human well being will acknowledge the value of
the non-human world to humans in more than merely economicinstrumental terms. If the existence of a non-anthropogenic
environment is taken as essential to human well-being, then
demands for environmental protection can be anthropocentric in
origin but no more contingent than ecocentrism claims to be; the
advantage of anthropocentrism being that it allows these
demands to be made within a familiar moral framework.
Propertarian
Private property ownership is good for saving the environment.
When no one owns parts of the environment, you get the tragedy
of the commons. G. Hardin (1968) described an increase in the
use of common land by a number of graziers, with each grazier
continually adding to his stock of animals for as long as the
marginal return from each animal is positive, even though the
average return for each animal is falling, and even though the
quality of the grazing deteriorates. Hardin used this metaphor to
describe any situation where the interests of the individual do not
coincide with the interests of the community, and where no
organization has the power to regulate individual behavior.
Ownership increases your incentive to get the most out of your
property, including long-term use. Owners want to get benefits
from property without destroying it. Thus, a property owner
would avoid contaminating the property with pollution. This has
been seen in examples of Scottish wild areas privately owned as
well as in fisheries that are privately owned not be over
harvested. The reason that the ecology is damaged now is that
lots and lots of it is not owned by anyone, so those parts (air, sea,
downstream river) get damaged because there is no incentive to
protect it.
Arguments against this approach include:
 Focus is on human value, not value to the ecosystem, so
damage is still likely to be done.
 Humans have a short-term focus in decision making about
property, thus they will focus on what makes profit now, not
what is best for the ecosystem.
 Human managerial skills are less than perfect, so even when
they try to do the right thing they might very well do the
wrong thing for the ecosystem and themselves.
Environmentalism
Humans must live in the environment. Thus, the large changes
that occur in the environment due to human activities are
accepted but damage to the environment must be corrected in
the interests of first humans and second the environment. When
there is environmental damage that threatens human health it
must be cleaned up as well as prevented in the future. This is the
paradigm accepted by most current governments – when thee is
an environmental problem and public opinion rises to do
something about it, then there should be action. The focus is
almost always on dealing with environmental problems after they
arise.
Arguments against this approach include:
 Neglects the value of prevention
 Much environmental damage cannot be cleaned up. Not
everything is reversible.
 Actions are taken when human interests are at stake, not for
the interests of the ecosystem.
 Environmental effects that do not concern humans (habitat
loss, loss of genetic diversity, etc.) are not considered.
 Action tends not to be taken for multinational effects, where
pollution that flows away from you is not seen as being a
serious problem.
Shallow Ecology
The focus here is individual responsibility and changing lifestyles.
Consumers are encouraged to “go green” by recycling, using ecofriendly products, driving less, etc. Educating consumers and
citizens is key to changing society as people change their
lifestyles.
Arguments against this approach include:
 Many eco-friendly products are only slightly so or not really.
Marketing with “eco” themes is full of over claims.
 Industrial and productive processes are hidden in this
approach; yet continue to create vast environmental
problems.
 A small action by consumers demobilizes them for more
serious ecological action as they think they have done
enough.
 There is no sense of correcting previous ecological harms,
but only on changing future behaviors.
 Allows people tom continue with a consumerist mindset
that still has them using too many products and resources, it
is just that they have a green label. Real need is to live on
less.
Deep Ecology
THE EIGHT TENETS OF DEEP ECOLOGY
(As established by Norwegian Philosopher Arne Naess and George
Sessions in 1986)
1) The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on
Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value,
inherent worth.) These values are independent of the usefulness
of the non-human world for human purposes.
2) Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization
of these values and are also values in themselves.
3) Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity
except to satisfy vital needs.
4) The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a
substantially smaller human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires a smaller human population.
5) Present human interference with the non-human world is
excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
6) Policies must therefore be changed. These policies effect basic
economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting
state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7) The ideological change will be mainly that of appreciating life
quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than
adhering to an increasingly higher (economic) standard of living.
There will be a profound awareness of the difference between
bigness and greatness.
8) Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation
(ethical imperative*) directly or indirectly to try to implement the
necessary changes.
(I would also agree with Arnae Naess that adherence to any of the
above must come from the heart and not out of obligation.*)
Arguments against this approach include:
 It is entirely natural for humans to put their values first.
Changing that will be virtually impossible.
 Many creatures change the environment and their part of it,
so humans do what animals already do.
 This approach requires vast declines in population, and that
can only happen with serious mass killings or massive
deprivations of liberties.
 This sounds great for those already well off, but for the poor
of the earth this call for frugality on the part of citizens of
Europe, for example, seems very self-centered.
 This approach tends to romanticize primitive lifestyles from
earlier centuries, and “things never were as good as they
used to be.”
 It seems to ignore the important role that technology will
play in any human future. Is technology always anti-ecology?
Defensive Deep Ecology
Humans are a virus that infests planet Earth. The only way to cure
that is to get rid of humans. Then, the world can heal and move
on to become something better. Human extinction would be good
and, in fact, is the only way to save the earth.