Download ppt檔案

環境倫理學
鄭先祐 (Ayo) 教授 國立臺南大學
環境 與生態學院 生態科學與技術學系
環境倫理

T00. 簡介：環境倫理與哲學
Part I 倫理與科學




T01. 道德哲學(moral philosophy)：理性與感性
T02. 道德考量(moral consideration)：倫理與科學
T03. 倫理與經濟：公有財 (The Common Good)
Part II 倫理推定(presumptions)的建構與驗證






2
T04.
T05.
T06.
T07.
T08.
責任
品性
關係
權利
後果
(duty)：自然和未來世代
(character)：生態美德
(relationships)：同理心與正直
(rights)：人類與動物
(consequences)：預測未來
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
環境倫理學
Part III 自然學習 (Learning from Nature)

T09.
 T10.
 T11.
 T12.
 T13.
 T14.
 T15.

3
生活：可持續消費
環境政策：政府、機構和NGOs
健康環境：空氣與水
農業：土地與食物
公有地：適應式管理
城鄉生態學：綠色建構
氣候變遷：全球溫化
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
Part II 倫理推定(presumptions)的建構與驗證
T08. 後果 (consequences)：預測未來
鄭先祐 (Ayo) 教授 國立臺南大學
環境 與生態學院 生態科學與技術學系
T08.
後果 (consequences)：預測未來
責任 (Duty)
責任論的
倫理
Ethics
Deontological
目的論的
Teleological
好行為
Right action
權利 (Rights)
做好
Being good
品行
(Character)
後果
Consequences
5
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
關係
(Relationships)
T08. 後果 (consequences)
：預測未來
This approach to ethics does not presume
that any action is intrinsically right or
wrong, but proposes that the action which
will likely have the best consequences is
“right”.

6
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
T08. 後果 (consequences)
：預測未來
8.1
 8.2
 8.3
 8.4
 8.5

7
Utilitarianism
animal suffering
cost-benefit analysis
biocentric consequentialism
scientific consequences
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
8.1 Utilitarianism
David Hume (1711-1776) first proposed a theory
of utilitarianism, following by Jeremy Bentham
(1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).
Nature has placed mankind under the governance of
two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.




8
It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as
well as to determine what we shall do.
According to the greatest happiness principle,… the
ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which
all other things are desirable, is an existence exempt as
free as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in
enjoyments.
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
Problems
1. How happiness or pleasure is to be
measured?
2. No action is prohibited as wrong?
3. Concerns future generations?
4. We cannot know the consequences of
acting. Our prediction are uncertain, we are
ignorant of the consequences.
9
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
Rule and preference
utilitarianism



Alternative forms of utilitarian reasoning, now
known as act utilitarianism, have been devised to
try to deal with these difficulties in predicting
consequences.
Rule utilitarianism relies on past events for
consequential evidence of what an ethical rule
should be.
Preference utilitarianism assesses the desires of
those likely to be affected by a decision, in order to
predict whether or not the decision will lead to
consequences that yield more happiness.
10
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
8.2 animal suffering



Bentham was the first utilitarian to express concern
about the suffering of animals.
Among contemporary philosophers Peter Singer is
the leading advocate for including animals in
consequential calculations of pleasure and pain, and
for ending the tyranny of humans over animals.
The animal liberation movement is not saying
that all lives are of equal worth or that all
interests of humans and other animals are to be
given equal weight, no matter what those interest
may be.
11
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
Peter Singer



Singer argues that the suffering of animals used
in research generally outweighs the benefits for
human beings,
and he advocated vegetarianism because factory
farming causes unnecessary animal suffering.
Most people are surprised to learn that in the US
alone about thirty-seven million cattle are
slaughtered each year for food.
12
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
Assessing pain




There are difficulties with including animal
suffering in a utilitarian calculation of what actions
will yield the greatest happiness.
Mary Midgley suggest that moral consideration is
justified only when we recognize consciousness in
an animal.
Recognizing an animal as conscious like us, she
argues, gives us a reason to include it in our moral
community.
We have a duty to ensure that the feelings of
conscious animals are considered.
13
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
Wild animals



Do we have a duty to protect wild animals from
causing more suffering by preying on one another?
Singer argues that animal suffering is an ethical
reason for not eating meat, but he also states that
we have no responsibility to interfere in nature to
protect animals from one another.
Rolston agrees with Singer’s conclusion, but for the
different reasons.

14
Pain and pleasure are not he only criteria of value, not
even the principal ones.
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
Rolston


Rolston agrees with Midgley that our relationship
with animals leads to duties that recognize
intrinsic values.
We have a duty to minimizing the suffering of
domesticated animals in our care.


15
But we do not have the same duty to try to reduce the
suffering of wild animals in their natural habitats.
Any suffering that we impose on wild animals should be
comparable to their suffering in nature.
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
8.3 cost-benefit analysis



The commercial value of medicinal substances in
tropical forests is often greater than the value of
using the land for agriculture after logging the
forest.
To ensure fiscal accountability in the US, the
National Policy Act of 1969 mandates cost-benefit
analysis for all federal projects related to the
environment.
Nonmarket values, limited knowledge,
economic discounting to estimate future costs
and benefits.
16
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
Nonmarket values



Nonmarket values involving ecosystems include
the depletion of nonrenewable resources, the loss of
ecosystem functions, and the extinction of species.
Cost-benefit analysis also ignores human rights.
 Relying on cost-benefit analysis, for instance, will
characteristically require placement of toxic
wastes near poor people.
Our ethical presumption is the ecosystem
integrity and human rights are of intrinsic
worth.
17
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
Limited knowledge
Although it is fairly easy to assess the costs of
building nuclear power plants, but very hard
to know that the financial costs of storing
nuclear waste safely for centuries if the
power plants are built.
 萬一災變？機率？風險？代價？

18
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
Discounting



In financial markets, a dollar acquired today is worth
more than a dollar we will acquire in a year.
 The dollar can be put in the bank, and thus be
worth perhaps $1.05 in a year.
倘若資源量無限，永不匱乏。
資源愈早開發，轉變為現金，愈有利。
19
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
8.4 biocentric
consequentialism

Singer does not rely on cost-benefit analysis in
making utilitarian arguments.



His reasoning that our way of raising animals for food
causes unnecessary suffering for these animals.
Intensive animal production is a heavy use of fossil fuels
and a major source of pollution of both air and water.
Moral philosopher Robin Attfield agrees with Singer
that ethical decisions can be made without costbenefit analysis by using reason to predict and
weigh likely consequences.

20
Biocentric consequentialism (intrinsic values)
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
State of the world



If the consequential benefits are significant,
Attfield argues, we have a duty to adopt the
practices that lead to the good state of the world.
Stone argues for a pluralist approach to ethics.
Our brains have evolved to think about moral issues
by relying on feelings of empathy and
reasoning about what is intrinsically right and
good, as well as on our ability to forecast the
possible consequences of our actions.
21
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
8.5 scientific consequences

In 2001 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, which was established in 1988 by the World
Meteorological Organization and the UN Environment
Programme,
 proposed that human activity was “likely” causing global
warming.

In 2007, however, the panel “declared that the
evidence of a warming trend is ‘unequivocal’, and
that human activity has ‘very likely’ been the
driving force in that change over the last 50 years”.
22
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
Climate change


The shift from “likely” to “very likely” as a
scientific conclusion has strengthened the argument
that governments and their citizens must take action
to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into
the atmosphere.
We rely on science for predictions of likely
consequences, but need to keep in mind that
scientific information presents a perspective on the
world and does not simply reveal what is.
23
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
The limits of science




24
Scientific conclusion are limited by what we know,
by what we are looking for, and by how we go
about it.
The answers you get depend on the
questions you ask.
Science does not give us the whole picture, but
only perspectives on it.
If we describe our energy problem as a supply problem,
we will likely conclude that we need to find and develop new
sources of energy……
If we define our energy problem as excessive demand, we
will focus on ways of reducing our energy use…..
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
Science is human


Science is done by scientists, who are influenced
by funding for their research, their desire to have
successful careers, and their personal convictions
(信念), as well as by the results of their experiments
and observations.
Biologist Rupert Sheldrake observes that: “The
objective method is supposed to remove all
psychic interests of the scientists from what
they’re doing. In fact, most scientist are heavily
engaged in what they’re doing if only for reason of
personal ambition (野心).”
25
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
In doing ethics



Scientific reports may be affected by politics.
Economic interests may try to confuse the public
about scientific conclusions.
Scientific reports about the environment that predict
the likely consequences of an action (or inaction)
give us probable, possible, or uncertain
outcomes.

26
Therefore, in doing ethics we rely on empathy and
critical reasoning to construct moral presumptions
before drawing on science and other consequential
arguments to test these presumptions.
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
Worksheet for doing
Environment Ethics
1. Describe the environment issue you are
addressing
2. Construct an ethical presumption
3. Consider the consequences
4. Make your decision
If your analysis confirms your presumption, act
on it.
 If not, revise your presumption before acting on it

27
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
Construct an ethical presumption
Duty: to other persons, future generations,
nature
 Character: virtues of gratitude, integrity,
frugality
 Relationships: the extent of our moral
community
 Rights: social conditions necessary for human
dignity
State your reasoning as an ethical presumption.


28
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
Consider the consequences

List the likely consequences of acting on this
presumption



Distinguish and weigh the pro and con arguments





Are these probable or only possible consequences?
Are the long-term consequences largely uncertain?
Rely on reason on assess nonmarket values.
Use cost-benefit analysis for market goods.
Internalize externalities in market prices.
Avoid passing on costs to future generations.
If the pros outweigh the cons, then the presumption
is confirmed. If not, challenge the presumption.
29
Ayo Env. Ethics 2011
問題與討論
Ayo NUTN website:
http://myweb.nutn.edu.tw/~hycheng/