I.

General Flow
a. Moderator asks a question
b. All three panelists answer the question
c. An audience member answers the question
d. An audience member asks a question
e. All three panelists answer the question
f. An audience member answers the question
g. The cycle repeats
Justin: (introduces the panelists)
Justin: (introduces the reading and the topic: Environmental Ethics by Alasdair Cochrane.
Justin: The world is full of conflicts of interests..
Justin: The two fundamental questions of environmental ethics are: what are our moral obligations to the
environment, and why? For example, do we have environmental obligations for the sake of human beings living in the
world today, for humans living in the future, or for the sake of entities within the environment itself, irrespective of any
human benefits? Different philosophers have given quite different answers to this fundamental question which, as we
shall see, has led to the emergence of quite different environmental ethics.
Justin: (throws a question to the audience: why do you think we should care for the environment?)

Questions for Moderation:

1. What is environmental ethics and why should we talk about it? (to be discussed by Justin, but can be supported by
other panelists)
 Pertains to the ethical relationship of humans to the environment
 Entered public consciousness and policies in the 1960’s and was fully developed as a discipline during the
70’s
2. Why should we care for the environment at all?
 JJ: technically, because we owe it to the environment for all the resources we have extracted from it and
from its entities
 JJ: It could also be consequence-driven: if we don’t care for the environment, we will eventually suffer from
our inaction or “moral dessert”: if we care for the environment, we’ll get something out of it.
 Fox’s transpersonal ecology: “Once appropriate consciousness is establisehd, one will naturally protect
the environment and allow it to flourish, for that will be part and parcel of the protection and flourishing of
oneself”
Justin: Our next topic is about extending moral standing to animals. The concept of “standing” is, of course, borrowed
from the law. You have standing in a court of law if you have the right to be recognized and have your claims heard.
You have “moral” standing if, from a moral point of view, you have claims that must be heard – if your interests
constitute morally good reasons why you may, or may not, be treated in certain ways. People have moral standing.
Does anything else?

3. Are humans the only ones who should have moral standing? (Give arguments for and against each one of these)
a. Future generations of humans
 JG: present policies will affects those in the future but we are not certain of the conditions that
constitutes a good life for them. - basis is assumptions
 JG: Reasonable assumptions: attain their basic needs
 JG: Sustainable development: brand of development that “meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (definition by the Burtland
Commission)
 JJ: Argument by Golding: the relationship between the current and future generation is not mutual,
considering we cannot benefit from them, thus denying them of moral status.
 JJ: Counter argument to Golding: However, as shallow as it may seem, the aspect wherein the
current generation could benefit from the future is human egoism. Our constant desire of wanting to
be known would urge us to ensure that our bloodline survive; taking care of the environment would
do so.
 Ezra- there is no definitive group in which we owe them. we do not know who the future people will
be. Non-identity problem (Derek Parfit, the policies we(by the state) make directly affects its
citizens. The choices we make may lead to certain group of future people thus making it impossible
to know who may they be. Whom do we grant our moral standing?
b. Animals who have “consciousness” – capacity to feel pain or pleasure
 JG: - Argument by Tom Regan: moral standing should be extended to all “subjects-of-a-life”; they
have inherent value (dignity); follow ethical norms (not absolute)
  JJ: Argument of Singer: utilitarianism - ultimate moral goal is to bring about the greatest possible
satisfaction of interests (common good)
 JJ: Singer vs. Regan = utilitarianism vs. deontology (most good or weighing intrinsic and/or
instrumental value)
 JJ: actions should be evaluated considering both humans and animals
 EZra- *tackle animal-centered ethics*
Problems- too individualistic and unjustifiable interference with natural processes,
c. Individual living organisms, such as a tree
 JG: extend the argument of moral standing to organisms with no consciousness
 JG: Argument by Schweitzer: living organisms have a will to live
 JG: Counter argument: “will” requires a conscious experience (will: a deliberate or fixed desire or
intention)
 JJ: Argument by Taylor: teleological centers of life - living things have a good of their own that
they strive towards, even if they lack awareness of this fact
 JJ: Harm or end the life of a living entity when absolutely necessary -- 1) act in self-defense; 2)
basic interest of nonhuman living entities > nonbasic interest of humans; 3) humans are not
required to sacrifice themselves for others
 JJ: Counter argument: hierarchical framework instead of egalitarian (people are equal and deserve
equal rights and opportunities) -- negates moral standing?
 Problems with attributing morals to individual living organisms
1- anthropocentric thinkers and animal liberationist. They deny that being alive is sufficient enough
for the possession of moral standing.
Environmental ethicists argues = concious volition or will of an object is not necessary for the object
to be a good
Ex: cats= deworming therefore trees=sunlight
2- pilosopher who question individualistic nature of these ethics. Since people with these kind of
thinking does not place a higher importance with environmental ethics. They cannot account for our
real and demanding obligations to holistics entities such as species and indivuduals. (INTRO
ANSWER FOR HOLISTIC ENTITIES discussion)
d. Holistic entities, such as ecosystems
 JG:- argument of prioritizing human interests above all - extending moral standing to holistics
entities may affect the interest of human
 JG: Granting rights to one group (holistic entities) does not take away the rights of other
groups/individuals
 JG: Counter: what if interests and rights clash? Who then decides what to do? -- issue with
communitarian
 JJ: Argument of Callicott: Leopold’s claim is unfair and misplaced (Leopold gave holistic entities
moral standing on the basis of sentiment and affection) What makes it worthy of moral standing?
 JJ: Counterargument: If interests are not always tied to conscious experience, then it is possible
that nonconscious entities have interest and thus moral
 Community commitments - communitarian proposal solution for dilemma on how to treat different
entities.
Problems
1- who decides the strength and content of the community
There is biased in which you are more. Finding a standard for all is almost impossible
2- if human is the closest does it lead to anthropocentrism?
4. Is the extension of moral standing enough to resolve the environmental crisis?
a. The need for a broader philosophical perspective (Give arguments for and against each one of
these)
i. Deep ecology
 JJ: rejects anthropocentrism or human-centeredness and takes a “total-field
perspective”
 JJ: *eight principles deep ecologists should accept* 1) inherent value of all things
(living or non-living); 2) diversity contribute to the realization of these values; 3)
humans have no right to reduce this diversity unless necessary; 4) flourising
human life is compatible with smaller population and flourishing of non-human life
requires smaller human population; 5) present human interference with non-
human is excessive thus worsening the situation; 6) policies must be changed; 7)
appreciating life quality rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of
 living; 8) deep ecologist have obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement
the changes
 JJ: Argument of Naess: self-realization -- giving up a narrow egoistic conception
in favor of a more comprehensive self. Wider self - we are not removed from
nature; we are interconnected

 Available: Fox’s transpersonal ecology, ecological consciousness,

loopholes of deep ecology

 We should rely on fostering the appropriate states of consciousness instead of
focusing on principles.
 Ezra = two problems remain
 1- not all conflicts of interest would be resolve even by adapting the appropriate
state of consciousness.
 2= what will we do to those who do not adopt the new state of consciousness?

ii. Social ecology

 JG: - Argument by Bookchin: actions (agriculture, democracy, freedom) of a
smaller local community weighs more than that of a central government - get rid
of hierarchy
 JG: Arguments against: following order of natural world would not be entirely
applicable to human societies

iii. Ecofeminism
 JG: - Argument by Plumwood: rationalism, which brings about dualism,
oppresses women and nature (superior and inferior); rationalism is naturally
problematic; placing women near to nature places them closer to oppression
 JG: Arguments against: rationality does not necessarily lead to dualisms
 JJ: Argument by Warren: dualisms of rationalist are not inherently problematic;
only becomes problematic when used with oppressive conceptual framework (i.e.
logic of domination) to justify subordination thus there is a need to abolish the
said framework
 JJ: differences between humans and nature is not harmful but when assumptions
are made, this lead to moral superiority of humans
 ezra: spiritualist approach(land and nature are given a sacred value) -
emphasize link of women and natural world, women are more connected to the
natural world because of child bearing,gives woman harmonious relationship to
the natural world. Ancient religions in which Earth is considered as female (Mies
and Shiva)
 Those with spiritual approach, deep ecology and ecofeminism same pointl, to
resolve the environmental problem we face and the system of domination
inplace, it is the conciousness and philosophical outlook of individuals that must
change.

5. How can the conversation on environmental ethics move forward? (Elaborate on each of these)
a. The role of politics
 JJ: diplomatic agreements/treaties (e.g. Kyoto Protocol)
b. The role of businesses
 JG: Corporate Social Responsibility, business ethics, the “Greening of Management”
(recognition of the close link between an organization’ decision and activities and its
impact on the natural environment)
c. The role of science
 JJ: discovery of more alternative and feasible ways of protecting the environment

Justin: It is undisputed that humans should care for the environment, but in our quest to understand the philosophical
underpinnings of why we should care in the first place, it seems that we have only gained more questions than
answers.