Environmental ethics is a branch of applied ethics and a part of
environmental philosophy. It developed out of three insights: first,
that ethics cannot be built without the consideration of natural beings,
nature, or the Earth because all beings on Earth are interconnected;
second, that the scope of ethics should include future consequences, and
so ethics should have an inter-generational outlook; third, that proper
ethics cannot be built without recognizing that human life is only
possible given the proper condition of the Earth.
While traditional ethics had an exclusive focus on human beings,
environmental ethics is based on concern for nature. Environmental
ethics often contains criticisms of man's abusive or exploitative
practices with regard to nature. Some theories argue for the intrinsic
value and rights of natural beings, while others argue from an
anthropocentric utilitarian perspective. Furthermore, some theories
contain critical examinations of human nature, modernity, civilization,
and culture. Environmental ethics influences a large range of
disciplines including law, sociology, theology, economics, ecology and
geography.
Overview
Background
Modernity, including the Industrial revolution, radical development of
technology and science, and reason-based social organization, brought
about tremendous improvements in human life and many believed that the
modernity would result in perpetual material prosperity and the
spiritual enlightenment of mankind. The framework of modern thought was
based on two presuppositions: that human beings are the center of all
being (anthropocentric); and that reason is the only trustworthy faculty
of mind. Belief in the myth of progress and in the linear development
of human history emerged from these presuppositions.
Major ethical theories in Western philosophy such as Utilitarianism,
Kantian deontological theories, and virtue ethics, were equally
anthropocentric, presupposing the primacy of human reason with little
attention to spirituality. These theories discussed ethical issues for
the betterment of humanity but ignored certain basic realities: that
human beings are spiritually and physically interdependent and
interconnected with nature; that exploitation and abuse of the natural
world is just as problematic as exploitation and abuse of other human
beings; that human happiness cannot be realized without proper care of
the natural environment; that ethical obligations are intergenerational;
and that the faculty of feeling, and that emotion-based virtues such as
benevolence, forgiveness, and compassion, are equally central to
ethics.
The myth of progress assumed that two basic functions of the Earth,
reproduction of life and the cleansing of wastes, were permanent; and
that natural resources were abundant. Modern production paid little or
no attention to the fundamental mechanisms of the Earth. In the latter
half of the twentieth century people began to realize that development
was no longer sustainable without consideration for these functions of
the Earth; and that environmental damage and pollution, which exceeded
the natural capacity of the Earth, are harmful to humans.
Traditional ethical theories could not adequately account for, or
provide an effective ethical framework for, the conditions that humans
now encountered. Some ethicists tried to modify existing theories to
cope with the problems. Peter Singer, for example, developed
environmental ethics from a utilitarian perspective. Others, however,
questioned the entire intellectual framework of modernity and its
presuppositions, and developed environmental ethics on different
ontological grounds. Ethicists developed two different models:
anthropocentric and ecospherical. Each theory has a different
ontological understanding about the relationship between humans and
nature. Ecospherical theorists often find affinity with non-Western
philosophies such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Native American religions
that regard the human being as an integral part of the nature and
believe that the cultivation of human spirituality involves developing
emotion-based virtues including respect and concern for nature.
History
The academic field of environmental ethics grew up in response to the
work of scientists such as Rachel Carson and events such as the first
Earth Day in 1970, when environmentalists started urging philosophers to
consider the philosophical aspects of environmental problems. Two
papers published in Science had a crucial impact: Lynn White's
"The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis" (March 1967) and Garrett
Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons." Also influential was Garett
Hardin's later essay called "Exploring New Ethics for Survival," as well
as an essay by Aldo Leopold in his A Sand County Almanac, called
"The Land Ethic," in which Leopold explicitly claimed that the roots of
the ecological crisis were philosophical (1949). The first
international academic journals in this field emerged from North America
in the late 1970s and early 1980s–the U.S.-based journal, Environmental Ethics in 1979 and the Canadian based journal The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy in 1983. The first British-based journal of this kind, Environmental Values,
was launched in 1992. Environmental ethics is thus still at an early
stage of development and many theories are still experimental. As with
the case of other applied ethics, it is getting more attention in the
twenty-first century.
Tragedy of the Commons
The Tragedy of the Commons is an influential article written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science
in 1968. The article describes a dilemma in which multiple individuals
acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a
shared limited resource even where it is clear that it is not in
anyone's long term interest for this to happen.
Central to Hardin's article is a metaphor of herders sharing a common
parcel of land (the commons), on which they are all entitled to let
their cows graze. In Hardin's view, it is in each herder's interest to
put as many cows as possible onto the land, even if the commons is
damaged as a result. The herder receives all of the benefits from the
additional cows, while the damage to the commons is shared by the entire
group. If all herders make this individually rational decision,
however, the commons is destroyed and all herders suffer.
"The Tragedy of the Commons" can be applied to environmental issues such
as sustainability. The commons dilemma stands as a model for a great
variety of resource problems in society today, such as water, land,
fish, and non-renewable energy sources like oil and coal. When water is
used at a higher rate than the reservoirs are replenished, fish
consumption exceeds its reproductive capacity, or oil supplies are
exhausted, then we face a "tragedy of the commons."
In the metaphor, competing farmers can be replaced by a national
government or corporate entity. Primacy of national interests creates
devastating damage to the natural environment which is a common sphere
of humanity.
General perspectives
Environmental ethics attempts to develop theories based upon three major
concerns: preservation of natural environment; development of
inter-generational ethics; and recognition of the Earth as a unique,
indispensable environment.
Primary theories are anthropocentric and they focus on the sustainable
development of nature, which is the basis of various efforts at the
United Nations. Others are more experimental in nature and seek
alternative framework of ethics. Some radical environmentalists use the
latter theories as a political ideology.
Types of environmental ethics
There have been a number of scholars who have categorized the various
ways in which humans value and preserve their natural environment. Alan
Marshall and Michael Smith are two recent examples of this, as cited by
Peter Vardy in "The Puzzle of Ethics". For Marshall, three general
ethical approaches have emerged over the last 20 years. Marshall uses
the following terms to describe them: Conservation Ethics, Libertarian
Extension, and the Ecologic Extension.
Conservation ethics
Conservation ethics looks only at the worth of the environment in terms
of its utility or usefulness to humans. It is the opposite of deep
ecology, hence is often referred to as shallow ecology, and argues for
the preservation of the environment on the basis that it has extrinsic
value–instrumental to the welfare of human beings. Conservation is
therefore a means to an end and purely concerned with mankind and
intergenerational considerations. It could be argued that it is this
ethic that formed the underlying arguments proposed by governments at
the Kyoto summit in 1997 and three agreements reached in Rio in 1992.
Humanist theories
Humanist theories require moral agents a set of criteria for moral
status and ethical worth, such as sentience. This applies to the work of
Peter Singer who advocated a hierarchy of value similar to the one
devised by Aristotle which relies on the ability to reason. This was
Singer's solution to the problem that arises when attempting to
determine the interests of a non-sentient entity such as a garden weed.
Singer also advocated the preservation of "world heritage sites," parts
of the world that acquire a "scarcity value" as they diminish over time.
Their preservation is a bequest for future generations as they have
been inherited from our ancestors and should be passed down to future
generations so they can have the opportunity to decide whether to enjoy
unspoiled countryside or an entirely urban landscape. A good example of a
world heritage site would be the tropical rainforest, a very specialist
ecosystem or climatic climax vegetation that has taken centuries to
evolve. Clearing the rainforest for farmland often fails due to soil
conditions, and once destroyed can never be replaced.
Anthropocentrism
Anthropocentrism simply places humans at the center of the universe; the
human race must always be its own primary concern. It has become
customary in the Western tradition to consider only our species when
considering the environmental ethics of a situation. Therefore,
everything else in existence should be evaluated in terms of its utility
for us, thus committing speciesism.
Peter Vardy distinguished between two types of anthropocentrism. A
strong thesis anthropocentric ethic argues that humans are at the center
of reality and it is right for them to be so. Weak anthropocentrism,
however, argues that reality can only be interpreted from a human point
of view, thus humans have to be at the centre of reality as they see it.
Critics of anthropocentrism argue that environmental studies should
include an assessment of the intrinsic value of non-human beings.
Libertarian Extension and Ecologic Extension
Marshall’s Libertarian Extension echoes a civil liberty approach (a
commitment to extend equal rights to all members of a community). In
environmentalism, though, the community is generally thought to consist
of non-humans as well as humans.
Andrew Brennan was an advocate of ecologic humanism (eco-humanism), the
argument that all ontological entities, animate and inanimate, can be
given ethical worth purely on the basis that they exist. The work of
Arne Næss and his collaborator Sessions also falls under the Libertarian
Extension, although they preferred the term "deep ecology." Deep
ecology is the argument for the intrinsic value or inherent worth of the
environment–the view that it is valuable in itself. Their argument,
incidentally, falls under both the Libertarian Extension and the
Ecologic Extension.
Peter Singer's work can also be categorized under Marshall's Ecologic
Extension. He reasoned that the "expanding circle of moral worth" should
be redrawn to include the rights of non-human animals, and to not do so
would be guilty of speciesism. Singer found it difficult to accept the
argument from intrinsic worth of a-biotic or "non-sentient"
(non-conscious) entities, and concluded in his first edition of
"Practical Ethics" that they should not be included in the expanding
circle of moral worth. This approach is essentially bio-centric.
However, in a later edition of "Practical Ethics" after the work of
Naess and Sessions, Singer admits that, although unconvinced by deep
ecology, the argument from intrinsic value of non-sentient entities is
plausible, but at best problematic.
Ecologic Extension places emphasis not on human rights but on the
recognition of the fundamental interdependence of all biological and
abiological entities and their essential diversity. Where as Libertarian
Extension can be thought of as flowing from a political reflection of
the natural world, Ecologic Extension is best thought of as a scientific
reflection of the natural world. Ecological Extension is roughly the
same classification of Smith’s eco-holism, and it argues for the
intrinsic value inherent in collective ecological entities like
ecosystems or the global environment as a whole entity.
This category includes James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis; the theory that
the planet earth alters its geo-physiological structure over time in
order to ensure the continuation of an equilibrium of evolving organic
and inorganic matter. The planet is characterized as a unified, holistic
entity with ethical worth of which the human race is of no particular
significance in the long run.
Status of the field
Environmental ethics became a subject of sustained academic philosophic
reflection in the 1970s. Throughout the 1980s it remained marginalized
within the discipline of philosophy, attracting the attention of a
fairly small group of thinkers spread across the English-speaking world.
Only after 1990 did the field gain institutional recognition at programs
such as Colorado State, the University of Montana, Bowling Green State,
and the University of North Texas. In 1991, Schumacher College of
Dartington, England, was founded and now provides an MSc in Holistic
Science.
These programs began to offer a Masters Degree with a specialty in
environmental ethics/philosophy. Beginning in 2005 the Dept of
Philosophy and Religion Studies at the University of North Texas offered
a PhD program with a concentration in environmental ethics/philosophy.
Due to a growing concern about the environment, environmental ethics is becoming a key field in applied ethics.