Lecture 1 - Intro (part I; faking nature) Flashcards
Ecomodernism
Planetary Boundary approach
Shellenberger and Nordhaus
old conservationism
nature = fragile
biodiversity
biocentric
industry = enemy
humanity = pest species
doom and gloom
technophobia
new conservationism
nature = robust
ecosystem services
anthropocentric
industry = ally
humanity = god species
technophile
practical conflicts
landsharing vs landsparing (“half-earth project”)
geo-engineering, nuclear energy, biotech
population control
pleistocene rewilders
views on nature
independence
“natural”
naturalistic fallacy
unnatural is not automatically morally unacceptable and vice versa
natural as a biological concept is not natural as normative concept
different views on the value of nature
endangered (fragile/healthy)
robust (“nature will always find a new balance”)
sphere of purity or spirituality (spectacle; educational/ source of inspo;art/ the sublime, awe inspiring/ therapy; rejection ofmodern society)
resource (recreation/reservoir/maintenance)
3 groups of environmentalists
intrinsic: well-off city folk who seek wilderness
instrumental: progressives who want to ‘develop’ nature for recreation
relational (environmental justice movement): marginalised groups that battle pollution
referrals to nature in morality and politics
often a rhetorical tric
particular views often (mis)used for moral and positions and political goals
case: south america millions of hectares of forest -> problematic?
- co2 emission
- wildlife destruction
- livelihood
…
anthropocentrism VS non-anhropocentrism
“humans are always in the center because we always look through a human perspective”
The factual realization is impossible because at this point thought
comes in.
human exceptionalism
two problems:
sentience
jemery bentham
morally relevant capacities?
zoocentrism/sentientism
basis of moral status is consciousness and/or sentience (ability to feel pain/pleasure/enjoy/suffer)
speciesism
discrimination based on belonging to a specific species
-> characteristic of being ‘human’ is not a good reason to be favoured
sef-awareness could lead to more (or less) suffering
diffferent animal ethical theories
Singer (utilitarian): weigh equal interests equally
Palmer (relational): causal relations determine treatment
Nussbaum (capabilities): flourishing after its own kind
Regan (rights): subjects-of-a-life have inherent value that should be respected
biocentrism
All living entities have moral status
Albert Schweitzer
Taylor:
Attfield:
Biocentric outlook
ecocentrism
criticize animal ethicists
still in essence anhropocentric
also criticize biocentrists
emphasis on ecological relations and processes
Aldo Leopold: land ethics
holism VS atomism
holism: the whole is more than just the sum of its parts
moral holism: wholes (species, ecosystems) have independent moral status
they have their own interests
duties to nature
thought experiments: the philosopher’s laboratory
last man argument
central question of nature ethical theories: do we have direct or only indirect duties? does nature have intrinsic value?
consequentialism
human chauvinism
intrinsic value
3 varieties
1. a goal itself
2. possesses intrinsically valuable properties
3. objective value, independent of a valuing being
1st & 3rd often confused
why important to attribute/acknowledge intrinsic value?
other valuations of nature
relational values
instrumetal values
ecocentrism criticized
misantropic (anti-human)
environmental facism (Tom Regan)
how to solve moral dilemmas?
The brain is only concerned with itself, its own security, its own
problems, its own sorrow, and the other' is also this. The brain is never related
to anything. There is no
other’. The `other’ is the image created by thought
which is the brain.
clashes between animal ethics and ecocentrism in practice
hunting in order to create healthy populations or save ecosystems
keeping individual animals in captivity (zoos) in order to protect endangered species
eating meat (but could that be non-anthropocentric?)
compassionate conservation
do no harm
individuals matter
inclusivity
peaceful coexistence
specific ecocentric theories: deep ecology
Arne Naess
deep VS shallow ecology
non-anthropocentric and holisitic
a cahnge in world view is needed
identification with nature
social ecology
Murray Bookchin
break down existing hierarchies between people
Ecofeminism
Val Plumwood (gonna read a text of her), Karen Warren
connection between domination of women and nature
evident in gendered language: mother earth/nature
both are consequences of patriarchy and capitalism
capitalism = intrinsically focused on exploitation, destruction and instrumentalization of animals
false dualisms of ecocentrism
val plumwood
multispecies justice theory
intersectionality
intersectional forms of commodification
exoticism of asian and
environmental pragmatism
Anthony Weston, Andrew Light
not thinks too much about fundamental questions (nature intrinsic value, etc)
try to reach agreement on practical guidelines
via deliberation
different fundamental values steer deliberation
how do people define nature?