Download Chapter 5: Environmental Ethics Student notes Chapter 5 discusses

Chapter 5: Environmental Ethics
Student notes
Chapter 5 discusses the various viewpoints in environmental ethics and the bases for disagreements
between them on how humans should or should not interact with the environment. Major questions
that are addressed include the question of whether nature has intrinsic value separate from human use,
whether non-human entities have “rights,” and to what degree humans should intervene in natural
systems.
The Price of Cheap Meat
1. Factory farms are farms that intensively and industrially raise animals while simultaneously
raising questions about animal and environmental ethics.
2. Ethics is the study of right and wrong.
a. Western philosophies of ethics tend to be human-centered (anthropocentric). Even
environmental justice is at its base human-centered.
b. Environmental ethics is relatively new in Western philosophy, and the discussion has
turned toward how people should treat non-human entities.
Improving Nature: From Biblical Tradition to John Locke
Two common beliefs about nature have dominated Western philosophy, and both are anthropocentric:
1. Humans are separate from and superior to nature (from the Bible)
a. The dominion thesis suggests that humans should control nature and use it how they
see fit.
b. Or, humans have stewardship over nature, or the responsibility to care for and protect
the environment.
2. Nature only has value if it is useful to humans (John Locke)
a. Freedom means freedom to acquire and possess property, including one’s own body,
labor, and nature.
b. This utilitarian view of nature means that any part of nature that is unused has no value
and is wasted.
Gifford Pinchot vs. John Muir in Yosemite, California
1. Gifford Pinchot was a utilitarianist who believed in conservation, or the idea that natural
resources should be used but used sustainably and efficiently.
2. John Muir believed in preservation, or the idea that humans should not exploit nature and that
nature should be protected “for nature’s sake.”
a. Preservation is seen as particularly important for wilderness, or areas little affected by
human activities.
3. Pinchot and Muir were former allies in the protection of the environment, but they split in the
debate over whether to create a reservoir in Hetch Hetchy Valley or to leave it natural.
a. Pinchot argued that it would serve more people, “the greatest good for the greatest
number.”
b. Muir argued that the landscape was intrinsically valuable and should be maintained.
c. The third view, the land ethic, developed through the field of ecology and is broader in
scope than conservation or preservation.
Aldo Leopold and “The Land Ethic”
1. Ecology is the study of the interactions between organisms and their environment.
2. Aldo Leopold was among the first ecologists. His essay, “The Land Ethic,” is very important and
still very influential because:
a. it blends ethics and ecology.
b. it moves beyond ethics as determining the proper way for humans to interact with each
other to how humans should interact with nature. An example of moral extensionism
to expand human ethics to non-human entities, including land, water, plants, and
animals.
c. it places humans as part of nature, rather than separate from it, and dependent on
functioning ecosystems. One “cannot at once be a conqueror and member of a
community” (p. 72).
d. Leopold’s land ethic: a thing (or action) is right when it promotes the healthy
functioning of the biotic community, and wrong when it doesn’t. This means that
human use of the environment is not necessarily right (Pinchot) or wrong (Muir), but
rather depends on the sustainability of that use.
e. Thus, the ecocentric environmental ethic suggests that use of the environment should
prioritize ecological concerns over human concerns.
Liberation for Animals!
1. Leopold intended to extend ethical consideration to plant and animal species in order to
preserve healthy ecosystem functioning. The animal liberation movement argues for the
extension of ethical consideration to individual animals.
2. Peter Singer’s book Animal Liberation inspired the animal liberation movement.
a. He argues that rights denied to certain human groups are arbitrary and tend to be
progressively reversed, but such a moral standing has not gone far enough.
b. All sentient beings deserve equal consideration (as opposed to equal treatment),
meaning that minimizing or eliminating suffering for any species should be part of any
ethical decision.
c. By extension, any use of animals for human purposes is unethical, although some
activists take a less absolutist approach and only want to minimize suffering of animals.
From shallow to deep ecology
1. Arne Naess distinguished “shallow ecology” from deep ecology
a. Shallow ecology focuses only on particular issues and does not identify the causes of
problems.
b. Deep ecology focuses on the relationship between humans and the environment.
i. Self-realization means that the concept of the self also includes one’s
relationship to the environment, so anything but an ecocentric view is illogical.
ii. Nature has intrinsic value, or value separate from the potential for human use.
iii. Resonates with Malthusian population theories.
Holism, Scientism and Other Pitfalls
Environmental ethics sound like a good idea, but if taken too far will they result in eco-authoritarianism?
Critiques of environmental ethics:
1. Holism in environmental ethics (i.e., the land ethic) prioritizes the ecosystem at the expense of
individual entities. Response: the land ethic argues for the expansion of moral consideration to
the environment, not necessarily drastic measures.
2. The naturalistic fallacy assumes that because an ecosystem functions in a certain way, it should.
Taking the argument further, they suggest that ecology is guilty of scientism, and places too
much authority in science to determine ethical standards.
3. Social ecology argues that environmental problems are social in nature, and exploitation of the
environment results from the domination and exploitation of humans by other humans.
Environmental ethical positions are irrelevant until human society is egalitarian.
4. Animal rights activists do not tell us how to make decisions when human and non-human
interests are at odds with each other.
5. Environmental ethicists disagree on some issues. Examples of internal divisions:
a. Land ethicists and animal liberationists disagree on hunting, which may be good or even
necessary for ecosystem functioning (land ethic) but does lead to animal suffering
(animal liberation).
b. Deep ecologists vs. shallow ecologists, even though they might otherwise be able to
work together towards a common goal.
6. Ethics are just one part of the political, economic, and institutional context in which humans and
the environment interact.