PAGANO - Elements of Environmental Philosophy - LD

Piergiacomo
Pagano – Elements of Environmental Philosophy ‐ 2015

Elements of
Environmental Philosophy
with a small glossary on environmental disciplines
Piergiacomo Pagano
1

Piergiacomo Pagano – Elements of Environmental Philosophy ‐ 2015

Text by Piergiacomo Pagano
Pictures by Monica Simonini and Piergiacomo Pagano
Cartoons by Francesca Pazzaglia
© Piergiacomo Pagano – 2015 – Published by himself
March 2015

SUMMARY
1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 3
2. Why this booklet? ................................................................................ 4
3. Environmental Philosophy ................................................................... 4
Environmental philosophy: the novelties ................................................. 5
4. The historical roots .............................................................................. 5
5. Environmental awareness .................................................................... 7
6. Environmental philosophy in the debate on the future .................... 10
7. Environmental Ethics ......................................................................... 11
Recognizing Anthropocentrism .............................................................. 12
8. Environmental philosophical views in detail ...................................... 14
9. Anthropocentrism .............................................................................. 15
Strong anthropocentrism ....................................................................... 15
Environmental philosophies not devoted to nature .............................. 16
Weak anthropocentrism ........................................................................ 17
10. Biocentrism ........................................................................................ 21
Biocentric holism .................................................................................... 22
Biocentric individualism ......................................................................... 23
11. Ecocentrism ....................................................................................... 27
12. Broad‐spectrum environmental philosophy ...................................... 33
Humanities ............................................................................................. 33
Economy ................................................................................................. 34
Politics .................................................................................................... 35
Education ................................................................................................ 36
Beyond education .................................................................................. 36

2


1. Introduction

Our future lies on the choices we are making now. In the last decades
many environmental urgencies became undeniable. They need quick
responses. Some of them have to be devoted to the whole planet, some
other have to be devoted to wide or narrow territories, some of them need
technical intervention, some of them need economical intervention; some
of them concern the social sphere, other the ethical sphere, and so forth.
All responses are, however, tightly interconnected.
Among the environmental urgencies we could mention, in no particular
order:

• climate change,
• sustainable development,
• natural resources diminishing,
• loss of biodiversity,
• even more request of energy,
• deforestation,
• increasing monoculture,
• intensive livestock,
• spread of genetically modified organisms,
• waste treatment and reuse,
• hydrogeological instability,
• scarcity of fresh water,
• exponential increasing of world population
… and many more.
IN SYNTHESIS
The environmental issue is very complex. It requires an interdisciplinary
approach. Environmental philosophy is the rational discipline where all
reflections coming from the various human activities find their place to be
discussed, and elaborated to reach wise, and shared choices.
3


2. Why this booklet?

This booklet has been written to introduce in a simple way a relatively
recent discipline: Environmental Philosophy. It was born at the end of the
1960s in the Nordic, and Anglo‐Saxon worlds. It is more and more
discussed throughout the world.
3. Environmental Philosophy

DEFINITION
Environmental Philosophy may be described as a process that gathers
knowledge from every human activity, it develops this knowledge inside
the ethical debate, it elaborates useful principles in order to advice
legislators to reach sustainability, equilibrium, and harmony with nature.
Environmental Philosophy guides our behaviour, and it determines our
choices in the environmental field.

4


Moreover, since the incessant birth, and transformation of new subjects
utilizing “environment” or “eco” in their names ‐for example
environmental sociology, ecological economy, ecopsychology,
ecosocialism, and so forth‐ environmental philosophy introduces itself as
the right systemic discipline to study interaction, and mutual influences of
these subjects.

Environmental philosophy: the novelties
• Since it concerns values, environmental philosophy may be viewed an
expansion of science over its traditional boundary. Its task is
evaluative other than descriptive.
• Environmental philosophy is a new branch of applied ethics. It reflects
on the environment as a peculiar field of research to verify the
coherences, and the sustainability of choices in order to offer ideas
about prescriptions.
• Environmental philosophy is characterized by a strong
interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary. It requires the collaboration
among experts of diverse disciplines (interdisciplinary) ‐that have to be
opened to dialogue and capable to operate using a dialogic method‐ in
order to reach a whole comprehension of the problems. It requires the
training of new multidisciplinary experts able to reach a synthesis in
the research of wise, and shared solutions.

4. The historical roots

• Since ancient times human being has been the cause of environmental
degradation. For example the collapse of Mesopotamian civilizations
was caused by the soil salinization due to centuries of irrigation too.
• Ancient Greeks were aware of the damage they caused to nature,
nevertheless they thought that the human being was free of any moral
obligation because everything in nature had the purpose to satisfy his
needs.
5


• Ancient Christians thought that God gave the entire nature to the
human being for his needs. God said, "Let Us make man in Our image,
according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea
and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

William Hogarth (1697‐1764). The Four Stages of Cruelty.
Some youths (1st stage) and some men (2nd stage) were abusing of animals.

• In the modern age many philosophers saw wild nature as a treat.
Thomas Hobbes (1588‐1679) thought that life in the state of nature
was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. René Descartes thought
animals were only objects. On the other hand Gottfried Leibnitz (1646‐
1716) thought that living, and non‐living things were similar.
• From the end of the XVI century on some philosophers wished for an
ethical enlargement beyond the human being. Among them Jeremy
Bentham (1789‐1832) developed an utilitarian ethic based on “the
greatest happiness principle”.
6


• For the first American environmentalist Henry David Thoreau (1817‐

1862) nature was pervaded by a moral force kept united by God. For
John Muir (1838‐1914), co‐founder of the Sierra Club, the presence of
the human being on the Earth was irrelevant.
• At the beginning of the XX century Gifford Pinchot (1865‐1946),
American president Theodore Roosevelt environmental consultant,
developed the conservation ethic.
• At the end of the first half of the XX century the forester Aldo Leopold
(1887‐1948) went beyond the anthropocentrism developing the “land
ethic”.
5. Environmental awareness
Environmental awareness arrived after the second world war when the
upper atmosphere nuclear tests sprinkled radioactive particles the world
over. People became aware of the mankind pollution power. “Silent
Spring”, a book by the American biologist Rachel Carson, reported the
human impact was treacherous, and relentless. Pesticides entered the
food chains causing whole ecosystems breakdown. Environmental
degradation became a whole planet problem.
People worried, and reacted. Environmental rallies were organized.
Environmental movements came into the light: WWF in 1961, Greenpeace
in 1969, the Italian Lega Ambiente in 1980. The Earth Day was established
in 1970, and every year it is celebrated on April 22nd.
In 1972 “The Limits to Growth”, a report commissioned to MIT by the Club
of Rome, warned that the exponential growth of population,
industrialization, pollution, food production, and natural resources
exploitation would have caused the humanity collapse.
7


Modified from: http://www.susps.org/overview/numbers.html
International markets reacted with fear. The oil price increased tenfold in
few years till almost reach the nominal price of 40 USD per barrel in 1980.
Oil prices 1965‐2011. Modified from:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Crude_oil_prices_since_1861.png
8


To avoid catastrophic consequences it was necessary to find lasting
sustainable ecological, and economic solidity. Nevertheless, taking into
account the amazing complexity of the physical, political, economic, and
moral world, what right steps did humanity need?
In the meantime, in number 155 of the 1967 Journal Science, the historian
Lynn White argued that the ecological crisis deepened its root in the
Christian‐Judaic tradition.
This article caused solid reaction, and severe controversy. The following
intense debate gave birth to “environmental philosophy”.
Among the causes of the environmental crisis:
• the Church was accused, because it considered human being like a
demigod;
• the political, and economic systems (both capitalistic and socialist)
were indicted because they utilized nature as a mean;
• science, and technology were criminalized because too much
materialists, and reductionists;
• the whole western society was considered unable to live in harmony
with nature.
Consequently:
• oriental philosophies were divulged;
• the most “ecologists” Christian saints were reconsidered (as Francis
from Assisi);
• values of primitive population ‐capable to live in equilibrium with their
environment‐ were rediscovered;
• big popular movements like New Age came into light;
• new holistic theories ‐like the Gaia hypothesis by James Lovelock‐
spread out.

Juxtaposition arose between people believing in unstoppable
technological development ‐encouraged by the 1969 first human mission
to the Moon‐ and people believing the arrogance of the human being
would have caused catastrophes.
9


6. Environmental philosophy in the debate on the

future

The environmental concern became worldwide increasingly important.
Environmental scientific, political, and economic activities became even
more dense. Philosophy entered consistently in the debate inspiring
choices and decisions, as happened in the evolution of the sustainable
development idea ‐as explained later in the text‐.
Among the others were established:
• IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) in 1948;
• UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) in 1972;
• IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in 1988.
Conferences, and meeting intensified. ONU organized:
• the Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, 1972);
• the Conf. on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992);
• the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002)
• the Climate Change Conference (Bali, 2007);
• the Climate Change Conference (Copenhagen, 2009);
• the Conf. on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, Rio de Janeiro, 2012).
Commissions were established; documents, and treatises were written.

Among the well‐known:
• Our Common Future (or Brundtland Report, from the UN World
Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) 1987;
• the Agenda 21 from UNCED, Rio de Janeiro, 1992;
• the Charter of European Sustainable Cities and Towns Towards
Sustainability (or Aalborg Charter, 1994);
• the Kyoto Protocol, signed the 11th December 1997 and entered into
force in 2005.

International societies of environmental philosophy were founded, like:
• the International Society for Environmental Ethics (ISEE);
• the International Association for Environmental Philosophy (IAEP).
10


New specialized journals started to be published as:
• Environmental Ethics;
• Environmental Philosophy;
• Environmental Values.

7. Environmental Ethics

Ethical choices cannot directly derive from science. A clear example
comes from bioethics. Laws about abortion, in vitro fertilization,
euthanasia, and so forth are the result of a wide debate where the
objectivity of science has a great importance but it is not sufficient to
dictate. Moreover, sometimes environmental concerns are so complex
that science can only give partial prediction as probability of events. For
example the anthropic greenhouse gasses emissions, and the following
raising of the world mean temperature, are scientific certainties.
Furthermore it is clear that the more adverse climatic events will be even
more frequent. On the contrary the timing, the manner, and the dimension
of the climate change are not clear at all.
In spite of these limits science is the only source of knowledge equipped
to give objective reflection, and debate arguments. Over the years many
scientists, especially biologists and ecologists, have given their
contributions in the developing of environmental philosophy, and ethics.
Without science the ethical debate would remain fruitless.

Environmental ethics tries to answer the questions: “Could we do what we
want regarding nature? Do we have some obligations? If yes: what and
how many?”

Regarding these questions several thinkers have elaborated many answers
that, simplifying, we could distinguish in: anthropocentric, biocentric (or
anti‐anthropocentric), and ecocentric (or disapproving anthropocentrism)
views.
Simplifying:
• Anthropocentrism assumes at the centre of the interest the
human being. The morpheme “antropo” means “human being”.
11


• Biocentrism assumes at the centre of the interest life in general,
typically the non‐human life. The morpheme “bio” means “life”.
• Ecocentrism recognizes that human being is tightly linked with the
other living beings, and he has to behave accordingly. The
morpheme “eco” means “dwelling, home”.

Recognizing Anthropocentrism

We are walking in the countryside, we see a flower and two apparently
similar signs:

Both signs invite you to don’t pick up the flower, nevertheless the basic
concepts of these two exhortations are quite different.
12


• The upper sign states a kind of anthropocentric view. The life of the
flower depends on the usefulness it has for the human being. If other
people didn’t exist, we would be free to pick it up.
• The lower sign states a kind of biocentric view. The life of the flower
has a value, intrinsic to the flower itself. In no case we could pick it up.
Obviously these views go beyond the flower, and its beauty. They can be
applied to a messy bush, to an animal and/or its species, to an ecosystem,
and so forth. Until human interest corresponds with the nature interest
the difference between these views does not clearly appear. In contrast
when human and nature interests conflict, clashes may explode.
This was the situation in the American controversy TVA vs. Hill in 1978. At
the time the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was building the Tellico
Dam, a dam that was necessary ‐according to the TVA itself‐ for the
economic development of the area. But in some shallows of the river lived
the endangered snail darter, a little fish by the scientific name of Percina
tanasi, protected by the Endangered Species Act. Once the dam had
completed the deepening water would have destroyed the little fish, and
its ecosystem. The dispute saw the conflict between the anthropocentric
view of human interest of building the dam, and the biocentric view to
protect the fish life. As historically result the TVA won the case.

13


8. Environmental philosophical views in detail

Deepening environmental philosophy and ethics we discover a quantity of
ideas, and views that distinguish, and intertwine by the use of specific
terms as respect, responsibility, rights, conservation, preservation,
sustainability, intrinsic value, inherent value, and so forth.

Outline of environmental philosophical views
in decreasing anthropocentric order.
standing relation with
1° level 2° level 3° level principle
thinker nature
human
Frontier
Strong no rules behavior
(or cow‐boy)
without duties
everyone by
Lifeboat Hardin ecological crisis
himself
not devoted to comes from the
parity among
nature Spaceship man vs man
Anthropo‐ population
relations
centrism Social ecology social parity Bookchin
‐ nature
instrumental safeguard in
value of each Conservation order for the
responsibility
decreasing anthropocentrism
living being (wise Pinchot human being to

for nature
and intrinsic administration) benefit of
value of the Theological nature material
sole human Weak ethics or of goods
being species (Sustainability) the divine nature
donation protection
in order for the
transformative
Protection human being to
value
benefit of
nature abstract
goods too
each human
Ecosofies, Deep Ecology,
Disapproving anthropocentrism biosphere Naess and and non‐human
Bioregionalism,
(Ecocentrism) egalitarianism others beings self‐
Eco‐Evo‐Centrism
realization
Leopold, safeguard of
Land ethic real holism
Biocentrism Callicott wholes species,
Holism
or anti‐anthro‐ communities,
Value ethic systemic value Rolston III
pocentrism ecosystems
‐ Respect for nature respect Taylor
safeguard of
intrinsic value Principle of life sacrality of life Goodpaster
Individualism non‐human
of nature Animal liberation utilitarianism Singer
individuals
Animal rights inherent value Regan

14


All these terms have an explanation, nevertheless they could confuse or
they could be misunderstood. To get out of this myriad of propositions –
however keeping in mind that any outline is a forced simplification of the
reality‐ in this booklet I propose a classification of views that merely set
out a roadmap, useful to educate, and susceptible to variation along the
development of views, and definitions.
Now we will look in some detail some environmental philosophy views. For
practical reason we will first examine anthropocentrism, and biocentrism.
Since it represent a good synthesis among rival stances, at last we will
analyse ecocentrism.

9. Anthropocentrism
Strong anthropocentrism
Strong anthropocentrism could be identified with these following
sentences:
• the human being can do what he wants;
• the Earth gives endless resources to the human being;
• man power, technologies, and market economy resolve all contingent
problems.
15


Strong anthropocentrism is also called “frontier ethics” or cowboy ethics”
because it recalls the Old West pioneers behaviour, people that lived
independently from the Central Government, and its mechanisms.
According to this view no rules exist; every human being towards nature is
licit.

Environmental philosophies not devoted to nature

“Lifeboat” ethics
Indiscriminate use of common goods (land, water, air) means speculation
of the individual, and the devastation of the whole. The Earth is like a
sinking ship. Wealthy countries float on an overflowing lifeboat, poor
countries float in the ocean like castaways lacking of life jackets. The
dilemma is: what to do? If wealthy countries took on board the poor ones,
the lifeboat would sink, and all people die. The solution of the dilemma is
to privatize common goods, and to sustain the principle: everyone for
themselves.

“Spaceship” ethics
The Earth from the view point of astronauts clarifies the idea that every
human being is tightly linked to the fate of every other human being. The
Earth is travelling in the outer space like a spaceship with few resources
on board, and with no possibility to escape in case of failure. The solution
lies on the word cooperation. Capitalistic nations have to share some of
their richness with poorest nations because a “third world” collapse would
drag the entire world population into the catastrophe ‐rich and poor
countries without distinctions.
Social ecology
The basic structure of exploitation has not to be focused on the
environment, but on the human beings himself. The strong human being
preys upon the weak, man preys upon women, the old preys upon the
young, one ethnic group preys upon the other, the State preys upon the
society, bureaucracy preys upon the individual, higher economic class
preys upon lower, colonization power preys upon colonized people.

16


Once the exploitation of the human being on the other human being has
been solved the environmental question is automatically solved.
Regarding the conflictual relationship between man and woman, under the
term “ecofeminism” a variety of views is collected. They want to
undermine the patriarchal and “fallogocentric” paradigm inherent our
society. From the mere systematic point of view ecofeminism could be
considered part of the social ecology.

Weak anthropocentrism

Weak anthropocentric views are the most represented, and the most
followed. In general weak anthropocentrism expresses the idea that
human being survival depends on his behaviour. This is the reason why
the human being has to cure nature. He needs it for a quantity of reasons.
For the human being nature has:
• material value;
• “transformative” value;
• non‐material value.

17


Conservation
The conservation idea ‐wise administration‐ is a weak anthropocentric
view that could be synthetized with the sentence “responsibility for
nature”. It declaims that “resources have to be used wisely with caution,
since they need time to regenerate. Resources that cannot regenerate
have to be used fairly since they have to last as long as possible”. As an
example, we cannot cut all the trees of a forest. We have to cut only a part
of them because the forest has to maintain wherewithal to regenerate. It is
like our bank account. If we withdraw money without any care, sooner or
later we dry up our savings. If, in contrast, we withdraw only the interest
our capital lasts intact.
The conservation view concerns exclusively well‐known, and useful
material goods.

Protection
Nature is endowed with material value that goes beyond our current
knowledge. At the present moment some natural objects seems to us
useless, and worthless. In the future they could turn out useful in a variety
of circumstances. These natural objects own a potential value by the name
of “transformative value”.
This has been the case of Vinca rosea, a little plant from Madagascar that
seemed useless but, thanks to pharmaceutical research, now it gives us
two anti‐cancer drugs.
According to weak anthropocentrism we have to protect nature because
objects that seem to us useless today, in the future they could reveal a
utilitarian value.
Utilitarian values is not merely limited to the material world. It does exist a
value, as much inestimable, represented by the regenerating immaterial
benefit we feel, for example, when we delight in the beautiful great nature
aesthetic events, when we deepen into nature in search of ourselves, or
when, more simply, we go for a walk into the wild, or we see a seagull
flying.
In short “to protect nature” means to maintain nature untouched, just to
enjoy every angle of it, both material and non‐material, now and in the
future.
18


Sustainable development
Over time sustainability idea –and the sustainable development idea too‐
has had an evolution. The first definition date back to Our Common Future
the 1987 WCED report. It declared that a sustainable development is the
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” In the Caring
for the Earth report, edited by IUCN, UNEP e WWF in 1991 the idea of
ecosystems safeguard was introduced. The new definition became
characterized by “improving the quality of human life while living within
the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems”.
In 2005 UN encouraged the “integration of the three components of
sustainable development —economic development, social development,
and environmental protection— as interdependent and mutually
reinforcing pillars.” Then, cultural diversity may be a fourth pillar.
19


Considering environmental protection (the environment) a pillar

independent from the other typically human two pillars (economic and
social development) this declaration encourages a position of balance
between anthropocentrism, and a possible anti‐humanism. This position
seems to suggest that the conflict between anthropocentric and anti‐
anthropocentric environmental philosophies has to be overtaken to reach
a not‐anthropocentric view, we could call it eco‐centric.

Conservation, protection, preservation

Nowadays conservation, protection, and preservation are used as
synonyms, nevertheless historically they referred to very different ideas.
As we have seen before “conservation” has a weak anthropocentric
meaning aspiring to conserve useful material goods, in order that the
human being could use them now, and in the future; “protection” aspires
to protect all goods (material, not‐material, useful in perspective) in order
that the human being could enjoy them now, and in the future;
“preservation” has the non‐anthropocentric meaning to preserve all
natural objects independently from the utility they have for the human
being. In other words to conserve, and to protect are activities that the
human being does to defend the goods he needs to his own benefit. To
preserve means, on the other hand, to do not act. To preserve one
territory means to leave nature goes ahead undisturbed with no human
intervention.
Even if the distinction among these terms could be very useful in making
laws, many dictionaries today consider them synonyms. This is the case for
English and for other overseas languages too, like Italian with the terms:
conservazione, protezione, preservazione.

Divine donation ethics or “theological ethics”
Examining holy texts and personalities ‐like Francis from Assisi or Benedict
from Norcia‐ Christians theologians conceived a new environmental vision.
The biblical words about the human being dominium on nature have to be
interpreted along with the primary donation God gave to the human
being. Christian ethics, theologians argue, is not anthropocentric. It has to
be called theocentric or of the “wise administration”. Creation belongs to
God. God put it into the hands of the human being. Human being can
20


utilize it for his benefit, nevertheless he has to account for what he does.
According to this vision the human being is the gardener of “the home of
everybody, and everything”.

10. Biocentrism

Biocentrism could be identified with these sentences:
• The human being is like any other living being.
• The human being thinks to be superior because he judges himself.
• The human being is less important than ecological “key species”,
without which ecosystem would collapse.
• This means that the human being cannot do what he wants with
nature. Life has to be at the centre of moral consideration, and the
human being has to understand that morality dictates he has to leave
room to the other living beings.
Biocentrism could be divided, at second level, in biocentric holism and
biocentric individualism.
• Biocentric holism recognizes moral dignity to groups of individual

entities (species, communities, ecosystems, and so on).
• Biocentric individualism recognizes the life of every individual
organisms –a dog, a frog, an insect, a plant, etc.‐ as discriminating
criterion to moral respectability.

Distinctions are practical other than theoretical. For example in the Italian
Apennines mountains the multitude of roe deer is threating the ecosystem
equilibrium. Biocentric holism, recognizing a moral dignity to the group
rather than the individual, permits the selective killing of some animals
whereas biocentric individualism does not. To manage lands currently it is
used to apply an holistic view to wild not endangered animals, and
individualistic view to living organisms under the direct supervision of the
human being like cats, dogs, livestock, big trees, and endangered wild
organisms.
21


Biocentric holism

Land ethic
“Land ethic” date back the half of the last Century when the forester Aldo
Leopold published the book titled A Sand County Almanac. Philosopher J.
Baird Callicott is its well‐known recent supporter. He has re‐thought
Leopold theses ‐they were not considered rigorously delineated‐ he has
elaborated them in a more modern vision, and he has developed a whole,
and rich ethics.
Below the main points of land ethic are listed.
• Ecological sciences confirm that the natural environment is formed by
a community: the biotic community.
• Natural selection gives us the ability to perceive the identity of the
members of the ecological community, and to recognize the dense
web that relates each other.
• Natural selection has given us the intellect, and the deep moral
responsibility, forcing us to elaborate behavioural rules in order to
limit our destructive power in respect to the environmental integrity,
diversity, and stability.
• Human being has to recognize his role as integral part of ecological
communities, and so to recognize, automatically, nature’s rights.
• Land ethic is a deontological ethic (oriented to duties) rather than
prudential (imposed by the need to protect himself).
Value ethic
“Value ethic” has been conceived by philosopher Holmes Rolston III. He
has proposed to give moral respectability to natural objects following a
general criterion based on value. Its ethics is holistic since it recognizes
more value to groups of things (systemic value) rather than to single
objects.
Below the main points of value ethic are listed.
• Hierarchy exists inside the living beings world. It follows the “ladder of
nature” conceived in ancient times, or the nervous system complexity.
22


The more an organism has a complex nervous system, the higher is its
value. For example a cat is worth than a worm.
• Systems ‐populations, habitats, ecosystems, etc.‐ have more value
than single organisms.
• Members of endangered species have more value than individuals
belonging to a unique species. These latter individuals have more
value than individuals belonging to well‐represented species.

Biocentric individualism

Respect for nature
“Respect for nature” was conceived by philosopher Paul W. Taylor. He
thinks that giving moral considerability to groups of individuals means to
be environmental fascists.
He started from a rationale based on the ecological scientific laws as
homeostasis, equilibrium, and integrity. He called it “biocentric
perspective” of nature. He articulated it in four points:
23


1) Human beings are members of the living community like any other non‐
human living beings.
2) Natural systems are composed by a complex web of interconnected
elements, where the healthy biologic functioning of each organism
depends on the healthy functioning of the others.
3) Each organism is a theleological centre of life (in other terms it has an
ultimate aim) which chases its own good, in its own way.
4) The idea that the human being is superior compared to other organisms
is wrong, and in the light of the above considerations it has to be rejected
as an irrational deviation in our favour.

In spite of his criticism to biocentric holism, practically Taylor knows we
have to find a point of equilibrium. He thinks each non‐human organism
owns an “intrinsic value”, and this is the reason why they worth the ethic
of “respect”. According to Taylor the ethic of respect has been already
declared but it currently concerns only the human beings. To understand
the meaning of the ethic of respect it is sufficient to substitute the words
“human being dignity” of the current ethics with the words “intrinsic
value” concerning all the organisms.

Life‐principle
Life‐principle ethic, conceived by philosopher Kenneth E. Goodpaster bases
on the idea of “sacrality of life”. It is a soft approach just to hit the people
reasonableness, to reduce certainties of the people who feel nature as
something alien. Life‐principle utilizes the words “moral considerability”
and reject consciously the word “rights”.

Below the main points of life‐principle ethic are listed.
• “Sacrality of life” has the great virtue of –philosophically‐ sustaining
the ecological knowledge.
• If, on the Earth, all organisms are akin to each other, then it has no
sense to set ethical limits.
• “Sacrality of life” has an individualistic approach, but it doesn’t exclude
any enlargement to species, habitat, ecosystems.
24


However, some critics, stress that the too many comprehensive character
of the sacrality of life ‐or life‐principle‐ is too weak to result in concrete
laws.

Animal liberation
Animal liberation ethic was conceived by philosopher Peter Singer.

Below the main points of animal liberation ethic are listed.
• We have to expand the basic principle of equality to other species.
• As “racists” are called who consider different people from diverse
races, “specists” are those who treat other‐than‐human animals as
different.
• Differences among human beings and non‐human‐beings exist, as
differences among human beings themselves exist. Nevertheless no‐
one could say if and how, human ability are distributed among human
beings, races, genders. Moreover, no‐one could say if and how
possible differences come from our genetic heritage, the environment,
or prejudices.
• Equality of “animal liberation” is an equality that defend diversity. The
basic principle of equality is the equity of consideration; equal
consideration for all the different living beings could result in different
treatments, and different rights.
25


Animal rights
Tom Regan believes a shortcut can’t exist. We have to grant real rights to
animals.
• Singer’s equality principle is not sufficient to protect animals. We
could consider equal two individuals, and support one of them without
going against morality.
• Animals need real rights, and not by courtesy of the human beings, but
because they own “inherent value”.

Instrumental value, inherent value, and intrinsic value

Values may be distinguished in subjective, and objective values.
• Intrinsic value is an objective value. One entity (something or
someone) owns an intrinsic value if its value is independent of all
valuing consciousness.
Subjective values depend on a subject (a valuing consciousness). They

could be distinguished in instrumental, and inherent values.
26


• Instrumental value is the value of an entity that satisfy the desire of a
valuing consciousness.
• Inherent value is the value of an entity given to him/her/it by a valuing
consciousness, independently from the valuing consciousness desire.
Subjective values may be both natural and cultural.
Returning to the example of the flower and the two signs, the individual
who wrote the second one sign (don't pick up the flower so that it could
live its life) has given to the flower an objective value, intrinsic to the
flower itself. The individual who wrote the first one sign (don't pick up the
flower since others could enjoy it) has given to the flower a subjective
value. Having himself enjoyed of the flower (instrumental value) he has
given to the flower another subjective value that he has deemed good for
other people (inherent value).

11. Ecocentrism

A quantity of ecocentric views exists. They are characterized by a
disapproving anthropocentrism that never leads to the radical positions of
biocentrisms.
27


On the one hand they recognize the human being is similar to other
organisms, and he cannot live without them and the inorganic world; on
the other hand ecocentric positions recognize human being has the right to
be fulfilled. Juxtaposition between human being and nature doesn’t exist.
The environmental philosophical research has to strive in order to achieve
integration and harmony. The main way for the human being to realize
himself lasting in harmony with nature is to increase knowledge, and
sensitivity of people by divulging environmental good practices, and
environmental education.

Ecosophy
Ecocentrism has its historical basis on “Ecosophy T” conceived by the
Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess. “Ecosophy T” aims for the (in capital)
“Self” realization, that is the sum of individual realization (“self” in
lowercase) as part of a wider community. All organisms have rights to
realize themselves as part of the Self, that is to deploy their potentiality to
realize themselves into the community. The human being has this rights
too if he controls his individual self to facilitate the collective Self.
In the 1970s Naess distinguished between “shallow” and “deep” ecology.
He had noted that human interventions on environment were rough and
inappropriate to the complexity, and fragility of nature. As an example
imagine that sometimes a river overflows endangering the surrounding
terrain. The shallow action consists of building artificial river banks to
restrain waters, without any concern to the complex tasks the natural river
banks have. River banks not only host characteristic flora and fauna, they
slow down water and erosion, physically purify water thanks to gravel and
sand, biologically purify thanks to microorganisms. Right actions (deep)
tends toward lower anthropization leaving nature free to realize the Self
through the realization of each animal, plant, and mineral self, and, in the
meantime leave the human being to enjoy the ecosystems services
benefits. Using this approach human being desires and nature activities
could integrate in perfect harmony.
28


Naess encouraged everyone to conceive his own ecosophy, since from all
ecosophies could emerge a wise and common ethics. Moreover he hoped
for the birth of a movement, the deep ecology, in order to practice the
theoretical reflections of ecosophies.
Deep ecology
The deep ecology movement was born from the Naess reflections. It is
based on a platform conceived by Naess himself along with philosopher
George Sessions.
The deep ecology platform in eight points:
1. The well‐being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth
have value in themselves (synonyms: inherent worth, intrinsic value,
inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the
nonhuman world for human purposes.
2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of
these values and are also values in themselves.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to
satisfy vital needs.
4. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive,
and the situation is rapidly worsening.
5. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a
substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of
nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
6. Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect
basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The
resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality
(dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an
increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound
awareness of the difference between big and great.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation
directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the
necessary changes.
29


Bioregionalism
The bioregion is defined as a territorial unit with physical, ecological, and
cultural homogenous characteristics. It is typically characterized by a co‐
evolutionary history between nature and humanity. It is not limited by
political borders. It could include wide regions too, like a mountain chain or
a hydrographic basin.
Bioregionalism is a theoretical‐practical approach that contrast the culture
of globalization claiming ecological, political, and economic autonomies of
the ecoregion. From the theoretical point of view bioregionalism aims to
valorise the qualities of the bioregion merging the ecoregion diverse spirits
of the ecoregion (the area with similar physical and climate
characteristics), of the natural bioregion (the area with distinctive flora
and fauna), of the human population native settlements, and their local
cultural peculiarities.
From the practical point of view bioregionalism supports small‐scale
sustainability by maintaining bio and cultural (language, custom, and
traditions) diversity, native animals and plants farming, use of local
materials.
Bioregionalism, even if primarily centred on cultural activities, may be
considered an ecocentric environmental ethic because it doesn’t demonize
human activity ‐included those of major impact like industries‐ but it aims
to harmonize, and to realize human and nature desires working on their
integration.
30


Eco‐Evo‐Centrism

Eco‐evo‐centrism, conceived by the author of these notes, harmonizes
anthropocentric and biocentric views by a scientific ‐with an evolutionary
outlook‐ rationale.
Emergent properties come

into light from relations.
The emergent properties of
an object are those
properties that exceed the
individual parts properties.
In other terms an object
possesses emergent
properties if it shows more
properties than the sum of
the properties that come
from each part of it.
If we look at reality in static
way we see an human being
similar to any other living
beings, nevertheless if we
focalize on relations we
realize that some
substantial differences
exist.
Over millions of years evolution has created a quantity of emergent
properties. Life is the most significant of them. Differently from a stone, a
living cell eats, eliminates wastes, reproduces, and so forth. Comparing a
stone and a living cell we could argue that life is a property that depends
on the complex macromolecules the cell has and the stone has not. But
this reasoning is wrong. A dead cell has the same macromolecules as the
living cell but it does not eat, it does not reproduce etc.. The real difference
is about relations among parts. Both macromolecules in a dead cells, and
little inorganic molecules in a stone, are simply linked together by cohesion

31


forces. Conversely, macromolecules in a living cell are parts of networks of
relations.
Emergent properties are almost everywhere. They arise from relations.
They are not prerogative of living objects. For example multicellular
organisms, watches, cities have emergent properties.
Recently, geologically speaking, nature evolved two other important
emergent properties: consciousness and culture. No‐one of these are
exclusive of the human being, nevertheless nobody could deny that the
human being presents them to a greater extent.
Consequently human being is not a superior being, nevertheless he owns a
special status. The human being is an evolutionary leap, he started a
transformation from biological to cultural evolution. Biological and cultural
evolution undergo different mechanisms. Since cultural evolution leaves
space to the diffusion of “maladaptation” our future depends on our
behaviour.
Eco‐evo‐centrism argues that the human being is a resource of, and for,
nature. He is even now a transitional organism, nevertheless he tends to
value the quality of life for himself, all living organisms, and all nature. The
mean to reach this aim is education to environmental philosophy, and the
popularization of environmental philosophy as context to discuss, and to
make wise decisions.
32


12. Broad‐spectrum environmental philosophy

Environmental issue concerns so broad interests that every branch of
knowledge had to face with it. Some disciplines have faced it as an isolated
problem inside their classical methods. Other disciplines have absorbed
the ecological ‐holistic‐ point of view, up to completely modify their
discipline approach. A quantity of ideas and positions has followed, trends
and movements have multiplied, teachings and courses with
“environment” or “environmental” in their titles have been established.
Now I am going to look inside this array. The overview will clarify the
importance to have a forum to discuss, summarize, and choose.
Environmental philosophy has this task.
Humanities
Our nature perception has largely due according to the way our society has
conceived it, and has behaved toward it over the centuries. Therefore our
choices rely on what society has taught to us, and on what we have
assimilated. In order to elaborate an independent, and original way of
thinking, we need to examine one by one every tiles of our historical‐
cultural mosaic. In the last decades a quantity of humanities has started to
be interested in nature and environment.
Environment aesthetic focuses on philosophical issues interested in the

appreciation of the world in general, not only on the individual objects but
on the natural and artificial whole environment per se too.
Environmental hermeneutics investigates on issues regarding our
environmental perception, and interpretation. That is what are the feelings
that arise from our soul when we delve into natural ecosystems, or in the
artificial environment as cities and country are.
Environmental sociology is the study on relations between society and
environment, on social factors that produce environmental problems, on
impacts of society on these problems, on efforts to solve them.
Environmental sociology has a quantity of interest. They include studies on
changes in society, trends, lifestyles, and in other entities like the “slow
food” movement in the agribusiness.
33


Environmental psychology and ecological psychology are two schools of

thought inside psychology. They differ for some nuances. In general they
are holistic approaches of the human psyche immersed in the environment
that houses it. They research solutions to environmental problems in order
to improve well‐being. They design, manage, arrange, project spaces and
rooms. They are related with psychology of architecture, sociology of
architecture, social ecology, and so forth.
Ecopsychology works at individual level facilitating the engagement of the
human being psyche in the natural world. It widens the emotive
connections of individuals toward nature, it discovers the reasons of
possible conflicts, and elaborates methodologies of motivation to
reconciliation. It improves the quality of life helping the individual to
develop more sustainable life‐styles.
Human ecology argues that ecology is not a completely biological science
because the human being is part of the community. It suggests the
interdisciplinary study of the human being immersed into natural, built,
and social environments. Its first definition, dated back to 1907, declaims it
is the study of the environment that surround the human being, and the
study of the effects environment causes on human life. Over time human
ecology has opened its interests engaging disciplines like geography,
sociology, psychology, anthropology, and many more.

Economy
From the beginning of its history environmental philosophy has been very
sensitive to the economic structure of the contemporary world. Some
macroeconomic variables like gross national product (GNP), consume, and
inflation has been criticized to be right parameters of wealth, and
especially of well‐being. Political economy has to find more real indicators
in order to operate its choices.
Change of perspective was hoped for since the days of the “Limits to
Growth” report, of the Naess criticism regarding GNP, and especially of the
book “Small Is Beautiful” by the German economist Ernst F. Schumacher
published in 1973.
Over the years many school of economical thought has arisen. Below I
mention the main of them.
34


Environmental economics (or economy of the environment) is the

conventional economy applied to the environment. It pays specific
attention to the cost‐benefit analysis of alternative environmental policy to
face problems as air pollution, quality of waters, garbage disposal.
Moreover it looks for new opportunities to produce wealth, like –for
example‐ ecotourism is.
Ecological economy argues that economy is a subsystem of the ecosystem.
The man‐made capital could never replace the natural capital. This is the
main reason because ecological economy promotes actions considered of
strong sustainability.
Green economy is the political branch of ecological economy. It supports
the importance to evaluate, and to insert the natural capital, and the
ecosystem services in the economic bookkeeping. Efforts like “ecolabel”
and “green certificates” arise from its ideas.
The term “degrowth” characterizes a school of thought based on the belief
that our contemporary society cannot economically grow perpetually, then
it has to move forward on alternative ways. The quality of life depends on
values like arts, culture, family, community, labour, and so on. Then we
could reach a fair society, able to live in harmony with nature, diminishing
the quantity and improving the quality of goods. Serge Latouche, the
French economist and philosopher, is an eminent supporter of degrowth.
Practical actions in this direction are the activities belong the “fair trade”
as the Italian “Webs of Liable Economy” (Reti di Economia Solidale), the
“Liable Economy Districts” (Distretti di Economia Solidale), the “Ethical
Purchasing Groups” (GAS) are.

Politics
New politics have arisen from the environmental awareness of the 1960s
on. On the one hand classical politics have begun to promulgate policies in
favour of environmental protection (environmental politics); on the other
hand real politic movements centred on the need of a new ecologically
sustainable society based on the environmentalist opinions of social
justice, and peace have emerged. This is the case of movements that have
taken inspiration from the green politics.

35


Political ecology is something different. It is a broad‐spectrum academic

discipline connecting ecology, social sciences, economy, and politics to
deepen issues as degradation, alienation, environmental conflicts,
environmental identities, social movements, and so forth.

Some principles are considered universal.
Roughly the precautionary principle supports the need to act in a
preventive way when we miss indisputable evidence about the
consequences of an action. More precisely it recites that, without scientific
proofs, the burden of proof that an action is not risky falls on those who
takes that action.
Responsibility is the commitment an individual takes up when he accounts
for his own actions and for the consequences of them. Responsibility
principle widens this view toward future generations. It took its name from
the homonym German philosopher Hans Jonas book, to underline that our
current environmental behaviour has repercussions on the people (and
other beings) that will live on our planet in the future.
Responsibility principle stands at the basis of many political environmental
philosophies.

Education
Education is always important, especially when the current choices will
have heavy consequences in the future. Environmental philosophy has
ever thought education as fundamental.
Environmental education aims to teach, and to divulge results coming from
environmental disciplines. However, to a certain extent, environmental
education put in opposition experts, and people lacking a proper
knowledge. On the chairs resides professors, in the school desks sit
students, and pupils. If this is a good thing for kids, adults deserve sharing.

Beyond education
Environmental philosophy goes rather further education. Paraphrasing
philosopher Kant we can remain pupils lifelong trusting in the words of
others, and so being satisfied of the simulacrum of knowledge, or we can
exercise the talent of reason, investigate the principles learnt, confirm or
36


refuse them, and develop new ones. We could be the masters of our own
destiny only choosing the latter option. This is the main reason to divulge
environmental philosophy everywhere, especially in schools, and
universities. Environmental philosophy is a change of paradigm in the
social life, a mental exercise for all people and all communities, all to the
goods of people’s quality of life.
Environmental philosophy gives us the elements to know in order to
decide.

from imposed choices Æ to shared choices
from shared choices Æ to shared, and fully informed choices

37


Contact:
Dr. Piergiacomo Pagano
ENEA ‐ Italian National Agency for New Technologies,
Energy and Sustainable Economic Development ‐
Technical Unit for Models, Methods and Technologies
for Environmental Assessments (UTVALAMB) ‐
Laboratory Water Resources Management (IDR)
Via Martiri di Monte Sole, 4 – 40129 Bologna
e‐mail: piergiacomo.pagano@enea.it

---0---

“We can only learn to philosophize; in other words, we can only exercise
our powers of reasoning in accordance with general principles, retaining at
the same time, the right of investigating the sources of these principles, of
testing, and even of rejecting them.”
Immanuel Kant, “The Critique of Pure Reason”. Part II “Transcendental
doctrine of method”, Chapter III: The Architectonic of Pure Reason. 2nd
Edition, 1787
38

PAGANO - Elements of Environmental Philosophy - LD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAGANO - Elements of Environmental Philosophy - LD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Piergiacomo

• For the first American environmentalist Henry David Thoreau (1817‐

6. Environmental philosophy in the debate on the

Commissions were established; documents, and treatises were written.

living being (wise Pinchot human being to

Considering environmental protection (the environment) a pillar

• Biocentric holism recognizes moral dignity to groups of individual

Subjective values depend on a subject (a valuing consciousness). They

Emergent properties come

Environment aesthetic focuses on philosophical issues interested in the

Environmental psychology and ecological psychology are two schools of

Environmental economics (or economy of the environment) is the

Political ecology is something different. It is a broad‐spectrum academic

You might also like