Lecture 5 Responsibilities to the Natural World Flashcards
Anthropocentric to Nonanthropocentric ethics
What is the ethical obligation of humans to the natural environment? What is the philosophical basis for this relationship?
Traditional views tend to deny any responsibility;
Historically, we see that philosophical views have contributed to destruction/degradation (White)
There was rather dramatic philosophical shifts in the late 1900s
___ and ___ had moral standings based on anthropocentric paradigm, BUT only humans have moral standing, based on intellect/soul.
Aristotle, Aquinas
___ had moral standings based on anthropocentric paradigm, that only humans have moral standing (subjects/ends); BUT we ALSO have the obligation to nature (indirectly) to benefit humans (objects/means). He includes obligations to future generations of humans.
Kant
___ had moral standings based on anthropocentric paradigm, BUT consciousness as a criterion (but only humans viewed as conscious, though other animals alive.
Descartes
Moving away from the anthropocentric paradigm, ___ had moral standings based on a more egalitarian approach and raised the questions based on moral standing for NON-HUMAN animals.
BENTHAM
What is BENTHAMS’s egalitarian approach?
- evaluates the rationality of newborn vs adult dog, etc
- Criteria of pleasure/pain
- did not extend to natural objects
- suggested sensation
- can deny that rationality is a useful criterion OR
- can use rationality, BUT claims it for some NON-HUMANS
Can these same philosophical approaches be applied to environmental ethics?
given their roots, maybe problematic, but we certainly have tried
What are the environmental ethics of passmore?
applies traditional anthropocentric approaches to dangers associated with toxic waste;
views logic, thoughtfulness away from greed and short sightedness
What are the environmental ethics of blackstone?
distinguishes between desires and rights (right to livable environment, focus on non-interfering liberties, adopts a view that some rights are inalienable), agrees with KANT
Critics: argue that this comes down to personal properties rights; rights address negative actions
Where do we draw the line - are my rights threatened every time someone drives a car?
Moral Standing and Natural Objects:
We might agree that trees and waterways should be cared for, but why?
- so humans can use them (ANTHROPOCENTRIC)
- because they have inherent worth - nothing to do with human use (NON-ANTHROPOCENTRIC)
Some philosophers will argue for responsibilities to entities without imbuing them with rights (view rights different than responsibilities)
What is the moral standing of STONE?
- argued that rights (legal standing) exist when they are given/recognized, they do not occur naturally
- it is up to us whether trees, for example, have rights:
- institute legal action: advocate can be assigned (just as with a person in a coma)
- take injury into account
- relief runs to the benefit
What is SINGER’s moral standing for NON-HUMAN animals?
- from UTILITARIAN perspective (costs matter)
- describes “speciesism” as last form of discrimination
- argues that sentience (ability to experience pain/pleasure) is all that is needed for moral standing
- what causes suffering may differ across individuals/species
- questions are raised when we learn more about other animals (birds, fish)
What is REGAN’s moral standing for NON-HUMAN animals?
- from RIGHTS-based argument
- focus on intrinsic value, not avoiding suffering
- ex: would not allow calves for food production, because intrinsic value, it has a right to keep living (opposite view of Singer)
- extend to the “well nursed one year old” - cannot butcher just because different species.
Who said “all great movements . . . go through three stages: ridicule, discussion, adoption”. Adoption demands both our passion and our discipline, our heart and our head. The fate of animals is in our hands. God grant we are equal to the task”.
Regan
