Transcript Environmental ethics - Helsingin yliopisto

Environmental ethics
• Environment = everything around humans which is not
strictly man-made (wild nature, fields, cities, ditches)
• Environmental ethics: how one should treat natural
entities; what sort of relationship with nature humans
should have; moral standing of environmental entities
• Environmental philosophy: what humans can know
about environmental entities, what these entities can
know themselves (are they rational like humans); modes
of existing (e.g. ecosystems)
5.2.2008
Marjukka Laakso
Ethics
• Descriptive ethics = how humans actually behave/ what issues
they respect and appreciate
• Normative ethics
– Are there universal moral rules any good person should
comply? How should a person to behave? How should
environmental entities treated or be taken into account
morally?
• Grounds for moral concern, examples:
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.2.2008
Rationality
Reciprocity
Sentience
Duty
Virtue
Utility
Marjukka Laakso
Value dichotomies – theoretical disputes in
environmental ethics
• Intrinsic – instrumental value
– Moral status of environment in relation to humans: if
intrinsic, environmental entities are respected as
themselves and may even have rights
• Anthropocentrism – ecocentrism
– Is environment valued only for its worth for humans or are
natural entities valued as such?
5.2.2008
Marjukka Laakso
Dichotomies…
• Individualism – holism
– Is it an individual or society / species which is prioritised?
• Conservation of species versus well-being of an individual
animal? E.g. zoos
• Moral monism – moral pluralism
– Universal principles versus particular, pragmatic rules for new
situations
• E.g. is the Kantian principle applicable to all situations?
• Categorical imperative: ”Treat persons always as ends
themselves.”
5.2.2008
Marjukka Laakso
Criticism of traditional ethical theories
• Only individuals have a moral standing
– Ecosystems or processes in nature are excluded
– Animals have only instrumental value
• Rights-based theories:
– Rights entitle one to make justified claims, but who are
obliged to fulfil these rights, e.g., in the case of animals?
• Trad. environmental theories: only ”important” parts of
natural system has a moral standing, like mountains and
animals. Excludes often ditches, parks, lower insects as
secondary
5.2.2008
Marjukka Laakso
Environmental ethical theories
1. Conservationism
• Ethics of wise use
• environment = resource for human action
• Instirumental value, efficiency
• Gifford Pinchot (1865-1946):
2.
•
•
•
•
Preservationism
Nature is preserved untouched by humans
Wild nature as intrinsic, but: not all natural entities are valued equally
Henry D. Thoreau (1817-1862): Walden, The Main Woods, Cape Cod
John Muir (1838-1914): Our National Parks (1909)
3. Moral extensionism
• Moral evaluation and ethical theories are simply extended to non-human
animals and natural entities: animal rights
• Singer, Routley, Callicott
• Individuals have intirinsic value
5.2.2008
Marjukka Laakso
Environmental ethical theories
4. Biocentrism
• Life as the criterion of value; respect for all forms of life
Albert Scweitzer (1875-1965):The Philosophy of Civilization (1949): all
life forms have equal value
K. Goodpaster: different life forms have different value (moral
meaningfulness)
5. Ecocentrism
•
All ecological entities, systems and processes are to be preserved
• Human life is valued an the basis of its relevant contribution to the
integrity of biosphere; humans are members of the society called
Earth
• Biotic equality = all entities including inorganic nature have intrinsic value
• ’extreme preservationist view’
Aldo Leopold (1887-1948): A Sand County Almanac (1949)  Land-ethic
Arne Naess: deep ecology (Ecology, Community and Lifestyle 1989)
James Lovelock & Lynn Margulis: A New Look at Life on Earth" 1979
5.2.2008
Marjukka Laakso
Challenges of environmental evaluation
• In evaluating environmental consequences of an action we
must take into account:
– humans
– non-human animals
– holistic entities like ecosystems and species
– future (human and non-human) generations
• Environmental harm as cumulative result by multiple actors
during a long period of time
• Probabilities, risks
• Action causing environmental harm is often useful in other
ways: e.g. employment, economical well-being…
5.2.2008
Marjukka Laakso
Some philosophical dilemmas
• If all animals are of same value as humans, why only humans
are required to behave morally responsibly?
• What does it mean “to take ethically into consideration”?
What does moral standing actually mean?
– Is an experience by an animal ever understandable to humans?
How do we translate an experience of an animal into human
experience?
– If holistic entities are intrinsically valuable, how do we take into
account individuals of that whole?
• ’No ought from is’ – prevalent state of matters does not tell
anything about normative claims in the situation. It still
remains to be analysed, how to act and who is responsible.
5.2.2008
Marjukka Laakso
Summing up: environmental ethics
• A moral actor /agent
– Can other entities than humans be considered as morally
responsible? E.g., compare with punishment.
– Anthropogenic theory of value?
• Moral action
– Intentionally and knowingly caused consequences?
• Object in focus
– A human or an animal? A whole or an individual? Existing
or future-to-be?
– Moral considerability (K. Goodpaster, 1978)
• Justification
– Consequences, sentience, utility, virtue, duty, or contracts?
• E.g., whose utility? Consequences on whom?
5.2.2008
Marjukka Laakso