Environmental ethics Flashcards
Gaia Hypothesis
States the earth is a living organism which seeks equilibrium. Nature evolves, not us.
Deep ecology / Libertarianism
All life forms have intrinsic value: ‘individual entities ought to be given right to uninterrupted freedom of existence’
- George Sessions 8 ways to look after environment
- Arne Naess: all living things have rights, humans have space in ecosphere but aren’t superior. He calls stewardship ‘unnecessary arrogance’
- ecosophy - attempt to ‘preserve integrity of biosphere for its own sake, not humans’. Reduce population, preserve diversity of species and ‘touch the earth lightly’
- Aldo Leopold: the social conscience of humans should extend to the environment. Humanity needs to stop being fixated on itself and focus on our existence as part of a mora economy
- Brennan proposes ‘eco-humanism’ (idea that all entities have ethnical worth just bc they exist)
Problems with Deep Ecology
1) misanthropic and human hating
2) it would lead to the destruction of humans
3) sessions 8 point manifesto is unpractical. Summits like the Kyoto Protocol have proven ineffective
4) singer says it goes too far as it accounts for non-sentient beings
5) how far can you go - can cancer and AIDS be protected as non-living entities?
6) utopian
George Session’s 8 points to look after the environment
- all life has intrinsic value
- diversity creates well- being of all
- humans must protect this responsibility
- human impact on the environment is excessive
- lifestyle and population change are critical
- human impact must be reduced
- political and economic systems must change
- those who accept the above must commit to peaceful change
Shallow ecology / conservation ethics
- plants and animals only have instrumental value ( to humans ) only humans have intrinsic value.
- ‘environment is there for our own exclusive pleasure’
- La Bossiere: extinction can be justified as the natural order of evolution; nature taking its course
- Aristotle: ‘plants exist for the sake of animals… all other animals exist for the sake of man’
Christian views on environments ethics
- stewardship: duty to be ‘courteous, tolerant, humble, just and in awe of the creation that God has entrusted to us’ (Adolpho Masteranti)
- dominion: ‘let them have dominion… over all the wild animals of the earth’ (Gen 1:26)
- Creation spirituality: panentheism. God can be found in his creation so any harm is a direct sin ( St Francis of Assisi)
- st Augustine: original sin has weakened our relationship with gods creation so stewardship needs to be adopted
- fox: nature suffers bc mankind is alienated from nature. We need to ‘befriend’ nature.
- Kant: not moral. Only being good stewards for human purpose means environment is a means to an end not an end in itself. Should do so for pure sake of duty.
Strengths of the Christian approach
- Imperative to act with compassion and to establish gods kingdom, preventing suffering
- Natural Law approach is ecocentric so God’s salvation plan extends to all creation - Vladimir Lossky: all creation awaits redemption
Weaknesses of the Christian approach
- Wright - anthropocentric
- Instrumentality
- NL doesn’t give practical solutions (Donnelly and Bishop) although it makes us realise eudaimonia isn’t possible without respecting the environment
- Theocentric approach: If god is in charge, nothing man can do to avert the coming destruction (lovelock). Dangerously removes human responsibility.
Kanthan views
‘Animals are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man’
Humans should treat animals w respect as it would make it easier to be respectful to all beings.
Baranzke - Kant influential in the development of animal protection laws in Germany
Objections to Kantian views
- his view rests on idea that there is a causal connection between how we treat animals and how we treat people
- but his is the wrong motive? Shouldn’t we not be cruel to animals primarily to reduce the harm done to them?
- abusing animals could in fact reduce the likelihood of human cruelty, in a cathartic sense
Utilitarian Views
- Paul Taylor: animals should be given legal rights for protection but not moral rights as they are not rational
- act: Bentham; benefits the majority. Future generations. Sentient centred so humans prioritised.
- rule: Mill; anthropocentric. Considers quality- consumer lifestyle is a lower pleasure and protection of nature higher. Prioritises people over nature.
- preference: singer; against anthropocentric as speciesism ‘draws an arbitrary line’. Considers future for all generations of nature.
Criticisms of utilitarianism
- Act is too impractical as a guide. You can’t weigh up all utilities.
- Rule is too rigid to account for circumstances
- Allows exploitation for short-term benefits
- Uncertainty of effects of future actions
- Qualitative and quantitative disagree on how to treat environment
- if the end justifies the means then this allows for turns of the majority e.g at Bakun hydro-electric scheme in Malaysia where drowning of valley (9000 indigenous people) for energy needs of 20 million
Ecological extension (Marshall)
Looks at:
- the inter-relatedness of all things in a geophysical structure of the planet
- essential diversity of things within the planetary structure
Places emphasis on recognition of fundamental interdependence of all biological entities in their diversity.
- scientific reflection of natural world
- asks for intrinsic value inherent in collective ecological entities as a whole entity
Smith’s Eco-Holism
- identical to Marshall’s ecological extensions: looks at biosphere and geo sphere to tell us what to do
- specifically humanist
- asks us to see value of nature in its own right for its survival by looking from another perspective
- similar to Mill’s rule utilitarianism
But:
- still means to an end to fulfil human needs
- Vardy says humans can’t see from other perspectives to empathise
Lovelock - Gaia Hypothesis
- argues planet is a self-regulating biological organism and is not focused on the survival or preservation of humanity
- Gabi is the general spirit of earth
- planet alters it’s own structure according to imperative that ensures continuation of equilibrium of entities
- unless we value and treat Gaia with respect we are under threat of becoming extinct
Gaia Hypothesis evaluation
Strengths
- gives humans sense of responsibility
- Marguils: lovelock and Darwin are compatible if ideas of symbiosis accepted eg fish cleaning sharks bringing natural selection closer to ideas of gaia
Weaknesses
- singer; misuse of term Gaia to evoke consciousness (lovelock didn’t believe this)
- lack of human centric hierarchy challenges Christian imago dei and idea of dominion. Partly solved by creation spirituality.
- Darwin: argument of all species ‘working together’ is inconceivable through natural selection
Dominion
- human dominion bc of imago dei and special relationship
- ‘let them have dominion over the fish of the sea’
- Aristotle: ‘she has made all animals for the sake of man’
- Aquinas: humans are the only morally important beings on Earth ‘all animals are naturally subject to men’
Stewardship
- sense of responsibility with creation story emphasising protecting and preserving gods creation
- pope john Paul II: environments damage is because humans set themselves in place of god and tyrannised nature
- ‘the earth yielded fresh growth and plants… and God saw that it was good’ - we are just care takes for this world and should protect gods creations e.g Genesis 6 all the animal species are saved but others are punished (Noah’s ark)
- we are responsible to god for use of the earth and will be accordingly judged
- our ability to reason and be moral gives us a duty to be ‘tolerant, humble and in awe of the creation that God has entrusted to their care’
Creation Spirituality
- st Francis of Assisi: god could be seen and found in all creation. To destroy or harm nature is a sin
- Gaia approach similar as both see humanity as part of the whole of creation rather than separate
- form of pantheism - moving Away from Christianity ?
Consequences of Sin
- the fall is same reason for environmental problems
- original sin has negative effect in our attitude towards neglecting responsibility which has damaged our relationship with god
- to rectify the situation we have to return to stewardship as genesis outlines its vital to resolve relationship breakdown
Rapture theology
The natural world is irrelevant because it has no future - destruction of the environment is welcoming and should be helped along as it’s a sign of the apocalypse & second coming
eco-holism
the belief that all aspects of the eco system should be treated as one intrinsically valuable entity
two proponents of deep ecology and their stances
Arne Naess: humans aren’t superior, and so need to abandon goals of economic growth and reduce their population
Aldo Leopold: social conscience of humans should extend to the environment
a proponent of shallow ecology
La boissere - can be justified in treating plants and animals only to have instrumental value because of the natural order of evolution; extinction is just nature running its course
Osborne
advocates dominion but that is not the same as domination
wright
lists 3 unhelpful christian ideas on environment
- humans are different
- humans are superior
- creation was made for humanity
that is the theocentric approach
Lovelock: if god is in charge, then there is nothing we can do about the environment; this allows us to transpose responsibilities
Kant on animals
respecting animals makes it easier to respect humans
–> but what if that isn’t the case?
Paul taylor
animals shouldn’t be given moral rights but legal rights
case study problem with utilitarianism
Bakun hydro-electric scheme in Malaysia - 9000 indigenous peoples drowned for 20m homes to have energy
Aristotle of plants
‘plants exist for the sake of animals… all other animals exist for the sake of man’
who came up with green virtues
dale jamieson
who came up with environmental virtue ethics
hursthouse
4 cardinal virtues
justice, prudence, temperance, fortitude
Rachel Carson’s (DE)
‘The balance of nature was repealed as soon as man came on the scene… well, you may as well repeal the law of gravity’
