3. Secular Concept of Conservation

Question 1

1. Shallow Ecology

Answer 1

• A similarly instrumental / anthropocentric view of environment is taken by conservation ethics, also known as shallow ecology.
• However, this view is secular.
• Claims environment should be conserved because it is in our interest.
• Environmental issues stand to cost us money, health and safety.
• Employs utilitarian approach (more people will be happy if environment is conserved)

Strengths:

• Highly pragmatic
• Secular (does not rely on claims about the existence of God)
• Cost-benefit analysis shows action now will reap rewards in the future

Weaknesses:

• Does not accord any intrinsic value to the Earth.
• If environmental damage were to occur that did not impact human race (e.g. extinction of an animal species) there would be no need to act on it because animal in itself has no moral value.
• The only aspect of this world that truly matters is humankind. (selfish)

Question 2

2. Deep Ecology

Answer 2

• Economical movement against anthropocentrism interpreted in traditional, religious attitudes to the environment.
• Deep ecology views natural world as having intrinsic rather than instrumental value.
• What in the natural world that has value varies. Some believe this includes (Peter Singer), minority include all natural beings (Paul Taylor).
• There is therefore a meta-ethical consideration about making something have value and why some beings and included / excluded.

Question 3

2. Types of Deep Ecology

Answer 3

Leopold:

• Argued for ‘land ethic’ (consideration of soils, water, plants and animals)
• He considered these things to have moral value and that they should be ‘loved and respected’.
• A thing is right when it trends to preserve the ‘integrity, stability and beauty of biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise’

Aarne Naess:

• Came up with the term ‘deep ecology’
• Argued that the environment has intrinsic value
• Came up with ecosophy which is a ‘philosophy of ecological harmony’
• Naess set out 8 principles for environmental ethics

1. Flourishing of human / nonhuman life have value in themselves
2. Diversity of life forms contribute to realizations of these values.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs
4. Flourishing of human life is compatible with a substantial decrease of human population. Flourishing of nonhuman life requires a decrease
5. Present human interference with nonhuman world is excessive and situation is rapidly worsening.
6. Policies must therefore be changed. Resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present (economically etc)
7. Ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation to directly or indirectly try to implement the necessary changes.

Richard Routley:

• Drew on the ideas of Leopold’s land ethic and argued that the prejudicial favouring of humans over other animals is ‘human chauvinism’
• Felt that harm to any natural object should be limited.
• Individuals should not ‘jeopardise the well-being of natural objects or systems without good reason’

Biocentric Egalitarianism:

• Developed by Devall and Sessions
• All things in the biocentric equality is that all things in the biosphere have an equal right to live… all organisms are equal in intrinsic worth.

Paul Taylor:

• Argued for the moral significance of non-sentient beings.
• Every living thing is ‘pursuing its own good’. Taylor says we should place ‘the same value on their existence as we do on our own’.

Question 4

3. Analysis

Answer 4

• Deep ecology movement argues that an intrinsic approach is needed in order to protect the environment.
   Brennan: empirical evidence could question the idea that ‘people who believe in anthropocentrism are more likely to have unenvironmental attitudes’.
   Brennan says that Latin American farmers who use land for their own livelihoods farm more sustainably than other communities.
   De Shalit: non-anthropocentric attitudes are misled in their approach to the environment as it does not appeal to most people (no motivation to act)
• Deep ecologists argue that although shallow ecology may be more pragmatic, it will not go far enough in preserving the environment.

Question 5

Summary

Answer 5

1. Shallow Ecology
2. Deep Ecology (Types)
3. Analysis