Download HenrikHallgren.Philos.Ethics

2016 Virtual Dialogue on Harmony with Nature – Theme Earth Jurisprudence
By Henrik Hallgren – Philosophy/Ethics
1. What would the practice of Philosophy/Ethics look like from an Earth Jurisprudence
perspective? How is that different from the way that Philosophy/Ethics is generally practiced
now? And, what are the benefits of practicing Philosophy/Ethics from an Earth
Jurisprudence perspective?
I suggest that the philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence can be formulated in four main principles:
 Subjectivity (Interiority). The universe is not a collection of objects but a communion of
subjects. Every aspect of the universe has value and rights. Everything has interiority, an
“openness” in its very being.
 Interbeing (Community). Everything is related and coexists with everything else. A being
is not an isolated piece but a part of greater wholes that are themselves part of greater
wholes, and so on. Everything exists in community and communion.
 Lawfulness (Order). There are organizing patterns in the universe and in the earth
community that we can detect and understand. We are part of a greater self-organizing
order and need to create our societies in harmony with this order.
 Wildness (Creativity). Even if there is order and lawfulness in the universe, it is a
dynamic, unpredictable and emergent order. The universe is complex and creative and it
and all its beings are therefore inherently wild.
The ethics as taught at universities has mainly been focusing on western philosophy from classical
Greece and onward. It has for the most part been an anthropocentric philosophical tradition based
on moral hierarchy and/or moral dualism between beings. Human supremacy has been defended
based on a doctrine about the human rational mind as the ground of value and rights.
Environmental philosophy and ethics has been criticizing the anthropocentric dogma of the human
rational mind, and tried to find other grounds for value that are more inclusive. Animal rights
philosophers want to expand the circle of moral concern to “sentient beings”. Other environmental
philosophers expand the circle even more and want to include all living beings in the sphere of
moral consideration.
All this approaches in environmental ethics has certainly good intentions but they are still caught
up in an idea of moral dualism where some beings “count”, and other beings do not “count”. The
“expanding circle” expands from the human at its center, and in that way do not escape
anthropocentrism fully. The logic in the model of an expanding circle of moral consideration is
that everything outside the circle is per definition without any value. Morality, in this view, is a
circle that we can try to expand in a universe that is otherwise valueless and open for exploitation.
Earth Jurisprudence can give us another ground for thinking about ethics, beyond the moral
dualistic thinking. Instead of finding argument and reasons why different beings should “count”
and try to expand a circle of moral concern, Earth Jurisprudence goes the other way around. It
takes the radical stance that everything has value and rights. It is not about trying to expand the
moral circle so it stretches to the whole universe. The universe and all its parts are fundamentally
valuable. That is the starting point. We don’t need a moral circle expanding outwards from the
human. It is like an ethical precautionary principle: everything is valuable until it is proven
otherwise. Or to put it another way, instead of an expanding circle inside-out, it is a new kind of
ethic from outside-in. Such a shift in perspective is indeed a different way to understand ethics and
philosophy.
1
2. What promising approaches do you recommend for achieving implementation of an
Earth-centered worldview for Philosophy/Ethics? (Note: depending on the discipline,
approaches could also be theoretical, although practical approaches should be prioritized).
At first I must say I find the term “Earth-centered worldview” quite problematic. I think we need
to think beyond any monocentric models - anthropocentric, earth centric or other. We are better
positioned if we recognize a world with many different, overlapping centers of subjectivity, needs
and values on different scales. I therefore propose, in line with the Australian philosopher
Anthony Weston, that we rather talk about a multicentric or polycentric worldview. Or if that kind
of terms is not so catchy, let us just use Earth Jurisprudence as a term.
My recommendation for achieving an implementation of this worldview is in a way also kind of
“poly” and “multi”. I think an implementation in the philosophical and ethical field will turn to
reality as a many-faceted process. The story of Earth Jurisprudence has a remarkable potential to
unite different social and environmental movement around a new, common vision and mission for
our time. But we need to allow the process of letting this new vision emerge to be creative, wild
and self-organizing. We have to let it be fuzzy and sometimes even self-contradicting. Not a
straight line but an emerging field. Of course we also need clarity but not at the expense of the
creative dynamics. I also think it is necessary with a movement that is working with theoretical
reflections and the highly practical issues at the same time. From this there can emerge healthy
and synergetic effects. When there are actual proposals for new laws based on an Earth
Jurisprudence perspective that will also stir a debate in philosophy and ethics. At the same time it
is very important that there are well- grounded philosophical ideas that can support and explain
these practical initiatives and create the new dialogue we need in our societies.
The process of implementation also has to include spirituality, art and nature connection practices.
Earth Jurisprudence is about a new (but also very old) way of inhabiting the earth that not
prioritizes intellectual thinking over other forms of knowing. We are sensuous, bodily beings. As
living, expressing (and thinking) bodies, we are a part of this earth and know it intimately through
our senses. When we open our senses we naturally experience connection and very often also
reverence. Our bodies already know the language of nature. Therefore implementations of an Earth
Jurisprudence perspective also need to take the sensuous body, the sensuous nature and the arts
into the discipline of philosophy. Without it– if philosophy is just theoretical reasoning – Earth
Jurisprudence might not make any sense, so to speak.
The indigenous peoples voices also need to be heard more in the context of philosophy and ethics.
Earth Jurisprudence takes much inspiration from indigenous peoples who show us other ways of
doing philosophy that often are more aligned with the sensuous and spiritual and artful ways I was
proposing above. I also want to mention the ecopsychology movement that strive to reintegrate the
human psyche in its larger ecological context, through rewilding the psyche and re-enchanting the
world. I think all this is examples of how to make philosophy and ethics more “fleshy” and more
connected to the spirit of Earth Jurisprudence and a polycentric worldview where we can restore
respectful relations to all beings as centers of subjectivity, needs and value.
3. What key problems or obstacles do you see as impeding the implementation of an Earthcentered worldview in Philosophy/Ethics?
One self-evident obstacle is the strongly held anthropocentric biases that we often find in the
philosophical discussions. Sometimes I believe that philosophers will be the last ones to embrace
the idea that nature has rights, just because of the fact that anthropocentrism for so long has been
the unquestioned fundamental starting point in much of philosophical debate.
2
But the obstacle is not just old habits in the philosophical field. There also exists a fear that a
earth-centric worldview runs the risk of devalue humans and eventually will lead to eco- fascism,
that it will do away with the hard-earned achievements we reached in the form of human rights
and democracy in many parts of the world.
To talk about an Earth Law, greater than the human-made laws, that the humans have to be
attentive to, can be understood in a way that is quite similar to the ideas that we can hear from
extremist groups like the Islamic State. These dogmatic groups also talk about a Law, in these
cases sanctioned by God, that have authority above any laws created by humans. How to respond
to these fears? One thing is a matter of labeling. I have already expressed concern about the term
Earth-centric and suggest a more poly-centric approach that opens up a worldview where not just
one sort of entity is in the center and the other in the margins. With a poly-centric approach we
make it clear that there are many different sorts of entities who need to be respected as centers of
subjectivity and value, for example human beings and their rights.
Earth Jurisprudence as a philosophy has to be clear in its thinking about Law and Truth. When we
talk about a Greater Law or Earth Law we have to discuss the question who has the authority to
say that they know what this Great Law consist of and how it should be interpreted. Is it the
scientists? Is it the indigenous peoples? The environmental activist? There is a real risk here that
Earth Jurisprudence comes into conflict with democracy.
Therefore it is very important that our interpretation of the Great Law is grounded in democratic
processes. To find out the truth about what the Earth Law and Great Law means, the arguments has
to go through a well-informed deliberative democratic and on-going process. That is the best way
to attain knowledge (and wisdom) about what Earth Law means, that is as true as possible. This
process also has to include representatives for the non-human species, the ecosystems and Mother
Earth herself. Not that these representatives unquestioned could claim to necessarily know what
these beings would “say” about specific issues, but their presence are a reassurance that the nonhuman voices are not forgotten. The indigenous peoples with their often remarkable place-based
knowledge should have right to speak and give their perspectives in this context. We also need in
general to facilitate the development of nature connected cultures and societies whose members are
more able to “understand the language of nature”. No new laws or democratic reformations will
ever be enough if we proceed to live in nature disconnected life-worlds.
My suggestion is to not inscribe so many detailed environmental goals or positions in the general
drafts or laws about the rights of nature. Instead we should focus on reassuring that nature’s
interests, needs and rights are taken into consideration in every process where decisions are made
that can put them to risk. By focusing on the connection between Earth Jurisprudence and
democracy, I think we can find a way beyond the fear of eco-fascism that many otherwise would
see as a hindrance for accepting Earth Jurisprudence.
4. What are the top recommendations for priority, near-term action to move
Philosophy/Ethics toward an Earth Jurisprudence approach? What are the specific, longerterm priorities for action? (Note: give 3 to 10 priorities for action).
1) Facilitate collaboration between philosophers, lawyers, scientists, politicians, activists, artists
and indigenous peoples in creating convincing proposals of how to implement Earth
Jurisprudence in practice, for example in an Ecocide Law, thereby connecting the practical,
sensuous and the theoretical levels. This collaborations, I think, will stir, engage and revitalize
the philosophical and ethical discussions.
3
2) Integrate Earth Jurisprudence in the political philosophical dialogues about how to deepen
and rethink democracy. Earth Jurisprudence has to be tightly connected to democratic
perspectives, through collaboration with human rights activists and thinkers, showing how
human rights and nature´s rights are codependent.
3) Show (through the collaborations suggested above, for example) how Earth Jurisprudence
can be the next revolutionary and transformative step in the philosophical and ethical
discussion, and its practical relevance for changing the relationship between humans and
nature. System theorist Donella Meadows argues that there are certain scales in a system
where small shifts can produce big changes. One of these so called leverage points with
greatest effects is to intervene in the mindset or paradigm that the system arises from. That is
exactly the scale that philosophy is engaged in, and we need to realize the transformative role
of philosophy in systemic change.
4) Ethics is about caring, it is a process we are involved in on a personal, cultural and societal
level. All levels are intertwined and affect each other, and Earth Jurisprudence matters to them
all, not just the societal level. Earth Jurisprudence can be reflected in personal and cultural
ethics as an art of living, as a cultivation of virtues as ecological sensibility and nature
awareness. To move ethics on the personal and cultural levels towards this Earth
Jurisprudence approach, collaboration with the nature connection movement,
ecopsychological community and indigenous peoples are of central importance.
4