Download ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

ENVIRONMENTAL
ETHICS
Part I: Philosophical Approaches
Morality and the environment
Some provisional issues:
Do we require a unique environmental ethics?
What is the scope of our obligations?
Agent and patient: The “really hard question” of the
beings in the class of moral patients.
Widening the circle of moral considerability!
MORAL ASSESSMENT
3 domains: meta-ethics, normative ethics and
applied ethics.
Meta-ethics
Abstract questions about justification, i.e. what makes
an action “right” or “good”
What justifies infringing on another’s freedom?
Appeal to principles or concepts to justify an act
Ethical Egoism
Why be moral? The Ring of Gyges (Plato and Kant)
If there were no negative consequences for your
action, would you do whatever you please?
What would stop you from acting out of pure “ego” or
selfish interests and desires?
E.E. asserts that it is best to perform those actions
that fulfill our own desire and interests.
Criticism of E.E.
Final criticism relevant to Environmental ethics:
It is counterintuitive
Image of the selfish driver of the gas guzzling vehicle!
Interests of posterity, status, etc.
Interests vs pleasure (ethical hedonism)
Ethical Relativism
Because there are no transcultural, universally
agreed upon moral standards, every moral action is
relative to the culture to which it belongs.
No moral judgment of cultures or just “other
cultures”?
Does it allow a culture to criticize or judged its own
practices?
Tolerance of differences, a virtue!
E.R. The conclusion!
We ought to be tolerant of other such practices
and beliefs.
Main reason: no universal moral standards to
determine rightness or wrongness of action.
Subjective relativism.
Does the culture really author its codes or
standards?
E. R. continued
The normative conclusion states the wrongness of
intolerance and reaction.
Disgust we might feel for child labour, racial
discrimination, the oppression of women, etc. should
be tempered.
Moral skepticism. Same or not?
Immanent criticism and E.R.’s inconsistency, eg.
Woman who criticizes her culture’s practice of F.
genital mutilation.
E.R. criticisms continued
No genuine disagreements? Every culture is right.
Disagreement is then only about truth or falsity.
James and living in a Christian theocracy. While he
believes in tolerance of infidels, he is wrong to do so.
His tolerance is false.
There is no such thing as an “ought” other than what
is practiced.
Fact versus Value
Factual statements: We pollute the environment
Value statements: We ought not to pollute the
environment
Naturalistic fallacy
Bridging the gap
Moral Assessment, again
Morality is about constraining interests due to conflict
Cooperation and evolution!
Moral assessment is not about making laws
Moral imperatives and principles! They are
prescriptive but not identical to social laws
Norms, not normalcy. Between mores and laws!
Moral Assessment!
Non-coercive
Justification, not behavior regulation like law
Normative theories: help us interpret what is
right or wrong or permissible to do.
No necessities, hence no certainties
Moral education!
Moral Theories
Why know them?
Why use them, or how to use them?
Dynamic application and generating
recommendations
Normative analysis
Utilitarianism
Consequentialist theory
Jeremy Bentham
Striving to maximize happiness and/or pleasure
for the greatest number.
Greatest happiness principle.
The Calculus!
Utilitarianism
Act versus Rule Utilitarianism
Seems to conform to our ordinary moral
judgments.
Example of George W. Bush and shooting down a
passenger plane.
What action would reduce the amount of
unhappiness and maximize happiness?
Utilitarianism
Bentham and sentience: widening the scope and circle of moral
considerableness
Each one counts for 1
Criticisms: 4 mentioned in text.
1. Promises. U. seems to recommend breaking promises.
2. Too demanding, impossible to execute calculus!
Frank and the 2 drowning people.
3. Ignores supererogation: acting beyond the call of duty.
Utilitarianism
4. Conflict with requirements of justice
J.S. Mill
Application to Environmental Issues:
Environmental Justice.
Toxic waste sites are disproportionately located
in poor neighbourhoods! First Nations’ land.
Sacrifice and utility! Is sacrifice necessary?
Deontology
Duty-based!
An action is right because it conforms with our
duties and obligations
Rights based approach (universality of human
rights also)
Kant and the 2 central categorical imperatives
Deontology
Categorical Imperatives
Not hypothetical imperatives! If false, no command
to follow
•
•
•
C.Is: Not falsifiable due to reality or logic!
Morality based on reason not passion! Rationally
derived imperatives.
Intentions matter!
“Ought implies can”
1st Formulation
Always act in such a way that you would want all others to
act!
Act in such a way as to universalize that act.
Action should be intended to be a universal law for all
others.
The Golden Rule?
Test is universalizability! Can an action be this way?
Logic used to test it: contradiction!
2nd Formulation
Act in such a way that you treat others always as an
end and never merely or only as a means for the sake
of humanity.
Anti oppressive an exploitative
“Ends” and inherent value
“mere means”
Autonomy, crucial value: self legislation
Criticisms
Generating trivia and immoral duties
Nazi, Gestapo example is classic
i.e. “Torture all those whose last name is Vancha” Hmmm?
Absolutist? Or merely general!
Personhood. Only a genuine person deserves consideration
under second formulation. What does it exclude?
Can the imperatives extend to “non-persons”?
Virtue Ethics
Ancient, from Plato to Aristotle
Rightness and goodness of action is dependent on character of agent.
Question is not whether the action is right; instead whether the person is
good!
Plato, the soul and integrity
Aristotle and intrinsic goods: happiness, flourishing and excellence.
Teleology! Purpose and function!
Virtue Ethics concluded
Reason in charge of the whole person!
Virtues: knowledge, courage, justice,
temperance, etc.
Dispositions or characteristics of persons.
Aristotle and virtues as means or mid points
between extremes. One is excessive, the other
deficient.
25
Virtue Ethics concluded
Phronesis, practical wisdom: skill at perceiving
what situations, contexts require and acting out
of the self in accordance with these conditions
Being just or courageous is acquired by doing
just or courageous acts.
Emphasis on action, doing.
Acting out of the self!
26
Criticisms of V.E.
Virtues differ from culture to culture: relativism
How does one become virtuous? Is it
indoctrination?
Virtues being used in the cause of evil!
Examples?
27
Contractualism
Hobbes and the state of nature
The role of the social contract
Actions are right by virtue of having arisen from
agreements among people
Discourse Ethics are similar
28
Contractualism
Establishing an authority figure, the sovereign, to
limit our natural liberty and end the threat of civil
war
The goal in part is to protect self-interest.
Liberalism: some civic freedom in exchange for
natural freedom
Role of judge/sovereign: define what is right and
wrong and intervene
29
Role of Justice
Justice is procedure.
Social contract binds people to sovereign
John Rawls and a thought-experiment:
The veil of ignorance/original position
suspending investments, identity
What would we agree to if we were asked under
this condition to determine what is just?
30
Justice and distribution of
goods
Equality or a justice distribution of goods would
be the decision
Rather communist? benefitting the needy!
Equality as access to positions of power and
prestige
Agreement over universal and basic rights and
freedoms
Does agreement equal right or justice?
31
Other strengths and
weaknesses
Rawl’s concept begins with a different concept of
human nature: people can be motivated by what
is right.
We are morally equal and ought to treat each
other with dignity (Kant)
Attaining status of moral agent if we erase our
partiality, our statuses, privilege, etc.
32
Strengths/weaknesses
Everyone counts in a radical way! hmmm...
Vetos and democratic participation
disagreement as powerful (dialectic, debate)
Important criticism: the attributes required to
enter into a contract: rationality
Excludes children and “other” future generations
33
Moral Standing
Environmental Ethics begins when we reject the
view that only humans can be moral patients
Inclusion usually and historically based on
interests (conation, sentience etc.)
Standing and species, groups, etc.
Rights and individuals
34
Moral Standing
Moral standing based on what kind of entity a thing is
Intuition: slavery, discrimination. Many beings that
were considered outside circle of standing have been
given it
History of value: decision based
Anthropocentrism: only humans have genuine
interests.
35
Moral standing
Wild animals: domestication has allowed us to
see pets, livestock (property) as having some
sort of moral standing
A problem with civilization? Power? just what?
Intrinsic and extrinsic value
Cruelty Legislation
36
M.S. and Speciesism
Properties that have qualified beings for
inclusion:
rationality, soul, language
Question of why these matter morally
Is there a special capacity or property?
Extrinsic value and valuation
Peter Singer and speciesism