Chapter 12:Environmental Ethics

By Melissa Gholamnejad, M.A. Philosophy, Claremont Graduate University

The Tension

Conservation efforts usually come into tension with human development efforts. Human habitats clash with natural habitats.

Conservation, tourism; tensions between economic growth and moral and aesthetic sensitivity.

Some Questions to Consider What wins out—a nonhuman species or

human economic growth? Do other species even have rights? If so, rights in what sense? Moral rights? Who/what belongs to the moral

community? Are other species members of a moral

community? What enables something to possess moral

rights?

Moral Community

In the past our definition of moral community has been (specially in the west) anthropocentric.

A moral community included human beings only because by virtue of being a person posses moral status (Plato’s 3- parts of the soul).

Viewpoint of Western Philosopher Humans are naturally superior to all

other species by virtue of the capacity to reason.

Aristotle: (384-322 BCE) The most gifted student of

Plato. Held that the source of

meaning comes from concrete physical reality.

A scientist who studied botany, physics, biology, astronomy, politics, psychology, aesthetics, and poetry.

Aristotle Continued

For Aristotle ethics originates from our encounter in the real world and with each other, the world of experience.

Relationship is a key, for individual does not exist alone as a private, independent entity. The individual exists in relationship with others

Not a question of DOING the right thing, but BEING A GOOD PERSON.

Aristotle Continued Humans by nature are RATIONAL

ANIMALS. We have a unique capacity to reason, to

be rational. We realize our true nature as rational

animals, when we properly exercise our reason throughout our lives.

How about animals that are capable of some degree of thinking, like the chimpanzee.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) A philosopher and theologian. His interpretation of natural law

became the authority in Roman Catholic moral teaching for over 300 years.

An act is right or wrong contingent upon whether or not that act deviates from what is viewed as “natural”.

Following the natural law is following the will of God.

Aquinas Continued Use of natural law distinguishes us from animals

in our capacity to discern this universal purpose (innate purpose to nature), this law, through the “gift of reason”.

We possess an inherent moral sense of what is right and wrong.

While non-rational being part in natural law is that their will is determined by God’s.

Capacity to reason indicates that humans are created in the image of their creator God. Nonhuman animals, lack this capacity and are justifiably subjected to humans for human use.

Group of Philosophers called RATIONALIST Socrates, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz,

Kant Hold that at least some important truths,

such as the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, the truth about what we ought to do, are either self-evident or can be deductively proved.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650) First modern philosopher,

famous for making the connection between geometry and algebra. Father of analytic geometry.

Meditation on First Philosophy published in 1641, which provided a philosophical ground work for the possibility of the sciences.

Descartes Continued Began writing Meditations in 1639-skeptical

questions concerning the possibility of knowledge.

First item of knowledge: COGITO ERGO SUM– I think therefore I am or I am, I exist.

Thinking or reasoning very important in human life. Since nonhuman animals and other species lack this faculty, humans are necessarily superior.

Only humans have minds, thus, animals cannot feel pain.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Divided philosophy into 3

parts:

Logic: Which applies to all thought

Physics: which deals with the way the world is.

Ethics: which deals with what we ought to do.

Kant Continued Claimed that because humans are superior (in

regards to being rational), they can justifiably use animals as a means to humans’ own ends. That is we have no DIRECT duties toward animals.

However, we do have INDIRECT duties to treat animals with respect and this indirect duty strictly prohibits us from treating animals cruelly.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:our actions should be derivable from universal principles: when we act, we are to ask whether the reasons which we propose to act could be made universal.

Cannot Continue We cannot continue in this

anthropocentric way because our resources have become scarce.

We need change in worldview. Thus environmental concerns compel us

to reexamine our traditional views regarding what constitutes the moral community, and whose interest have priority over other species.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) Born in London, he was the earliest

proponents of animal rights. Advocacy of utilitarianism of animal

rights and his opposition to the ideas of natural law and natural rights.

Goal in life was to create a complete utilitarian code of law.

Utilitarianism: notion that the right act or policy is that which cause “the greatest good for the greatest number of people”=the “greatest happiness principle”

Bentham Continued His principle of utility: “good” as that

which produces the greatest amount of pleasure, and the minimum amount of pain; and “evil” as that which produces the most pain without pleasure (both physical and spiritual).

If reason alone was the criterion by which we judge who ought to have rights, human infants and adults of certain form of disability fall short too.

Peter Singer Published in 1975 Animal

Liberation Published in 1979

Practical Ethics, his most comprehensive work.

Professor of bioethics at Princeton University.

He was influenced by Kant.

He is a utilitarian.

Singer Continued His ethical conduct is justifiable by

reason that go beyond to “something bigger than the individual” addressing a large audience.

The capacity for pleasure and pain, or simple sensation, is a viable criterion for moral status.

For Singer all creatures who have the capacity for sensation are part of the moral community.

Carl Becker (Buddhist) Holds the position that we

cannot maintain this attitude (whatever benefits there are in our environment, they exist for us) because our resources have become distressingly scarce. The only way to resolve this crisis is which human need far outstrip natural resources would be a complete change in our worldview.

Becker Continued

For Becker this is where Buddhist Philosophy, particularly in teaching regarding the interconnectedness of all things, is invaluable.

Reminds us that other living entities are stakeholders in the decisions we make with respect to the environment.

Joel Feinberg (1926-2004) Feinberg seeks to refute the

philosophical theory of psychological egoism in his 1958 paper

Psychological egoism—the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seems to be acts of altruism. Example of Kant.

Argues having some sense of self-awareness entitles one to moral status and respect.

If so, this would exclude plant species and the like from membership into the moral community

Mark Sagoff Argues that this emphasis upon

respecting individual living beings essentially conflicts with promoting the interest of the ecosystem.

If we do extend our moral concern into a bigger ecological picture, incorporating ecosystem, one lesson we can learn from ecology and the study of ecosystem is that nothing acts in isolation.

All things are interdependent.

Conclusion

In order to have sustainability it demands a vision of moral responsibility regarding the future of our planet.

Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics By Mark Sagoff pages 418-427 of our

text. Discusses “The Land Ethic” written by

Aldo Leopold. Which states that: “enlarge the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively, the land”.

Views to Consider Christopher Stone and Laurence Tribe state that we should

expand our moral community to include not only human beings but soil, water, plants, and animals.

Stone suggests that animals as well as trees be given legal standing so that their interest can be represented in court.

Peter Singer states that A) animals capacity to suffer pain or enjoy pleasure or

happiness places people under moral obligation. B) only a being that can experience pain and pleasure can

have an “interest”○ Singer does not include rocks, trees, lakes, rivers, or

mountains in the moral community. ○ His thesis stats that not necessary for animals to have rights

which we are to respect rather animals have utilities (useful) that ought to be treated on an equal basis with those of human beings.

What Is Our Moral Obligation To Animals? Is the moral obligation to animals to their

well-being or to their rights 1) Duties to nonhuman animals may be

based on the principle that cruelty to animals is bad

2) Human beings are to prevent and to relieve animal suffering however it is caused, whether in the farm or in the wild (a stronger claim).

Singer Vs. Leopold Singer’s thesis:

society has an obligation to prevent the killing of animals and even relieve their suffering wherever, however, and as much as it is able, at a reasonable cost to itself.

Ecological system is beautiful and demands respect but not on humanitarian grounds.

Singer Vs. Leopold Deplore suffering of

domestic animals Concerned with

welfare of individual animals, without special regard to their status as endangered species

Aversion to hunting Not environmentalist

Indifference to the matter of suffering of domestic animals

Urgent concern about disappearance of species

Top predators are gone hunter may serve an ecological function.

Environmentalist Vs. Animal Liberation (Animal Equality) Concerned with ecological issues

not humanitarian issues Acting for the sake of individual

animals Maintain the diversity, integrity,

beauty and authenticity of the natural environment

Allow hunters to shoot animals whose populations exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat.

Population biology not animal equality

Would sacrifice the lives of individual creatures to preserve the authenticity, integrity and complexity of ecological systems.

Suffering of animals their primary concern Singer: Moral obligation to animals

are justified because they are in distress and human ability to relieve the stress

Require society to relieve animal suffering wherever it can and at a lesser cost to itself, domestic or wild. Of course if suffering of animals

creates human obligation, then should we stop a cat from killing a mouse.

Henry Shue: if we give animals equal rights as humans, then we cannot allow animals to be killed for food.

Sacrifice authenticity, integrity and complexity of ecosystem to protect the rights, or guard lives of animals