CHAPTER VII Environmental Ethics Learning Outcomes [At the end of this chapter, you should be able to: 1, recognize the value of environmental ethics especially in the context ofthe contemporary era; 2, show an understanding of the position of animal rights activists and the philosophy behind it; 3. discuss biocentrc outlook on nature and compare and iffrentiste it from the land ethic; 4. trace the philosophical foundations of ecological problems such as climate change; and 45. exhibit an understanding of what It means to be a dweller in nature, | HE introduction ‘The earth has been in existence for around 4.6 billion years. If one scales this time to 46 years, humans have ‘only beon in existence for proportionately 4 hours and the Industrial Revolution in this ease would have started only minute ago. In this short period, we have found and invented ‘ways to exploit the planet's resources and have driven our ‘own species to the precipice of extinction. Various global ‘environmental problems and catastrophes, in scales unheard of before, have been popping up all around the world brought bout by global warming. People have caused the extinction of innumerable species of plants and animals. We have polluted the seas and pillaged the forests and mountains 80 ‘much thet animals have begun to exhibit strange patterns 132, — ‘of migration and erratic behavior. Large parcels of land in South and Central America have been cleared and burned for the sake of cattle raising that provides chesp beet for the West." Tn 136 years of monitoring the surface temperature of earth, NASA reveals that 16 of the 17 warmest years recorded have all occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998." Dramatic increases in global temperatures contebute to the melting of the polar ice caps, which then affects tlobal climate pattern, making it more dificult for climate Scientists to prict the occurrence of natural calamities such as typhoons and hurricanes. One can imagine a time when « simple walk outside the house would be considered dificult, not dangerous, due to this increase in temperature. In these troubled times, one asks what sort of world will be left for ature generations of human beings ‘The human population ofthe world is expected to nearly triple by the year 2100. As human beings continue to place thie faith in the principles and ideas of progres, the drive to consume simultaneously becomes the primary impetus for lite. The technological era has facilitated the human capacity to extract wealth and resources from nature and has since allowed hnuman beings to live with far more convenience and comfort than ever before, Technology has allowed human beings to live longer, but one may ask, what for? People seem to want alot of things now without knowing why they ‘want them. Consumption is now done for its own sake. Te is xo longer utility that drives people to buy and want more products. If seems that utility has become an afterthought, Secondary to the compulsive need to have and possess. As people accumulate more and more things and lve longer (but with more diseases), corparstions continue to supply all their demands. As both production and consumption increase, the 2% eetmounmercuen ons asarecaten 2 Seteehenbenss gorse man! v8Pane ll SPeciat Tomies IN ETHICS environment is pushed to its limits, foreed to provide people more and more of their needs and wants. ‘More often then aot, poople associate ethies with the study of one's relationship with other people, exclusively It is often overlooked that Iman existence and his/her Tbond with others is made possible in the first place with his/her relationship with the environment. Interpersonal relationships are kept and nurtured against the background of that which gives and nurtures life in the first place. IF fone neglects one’s relationship with the environment and does not value It enough to warrant at least the question, “How must one manage one’s existence with respect to the finitude of resources,” then one essentially shows neglect tnd apathy towards the welfare of other persons. When one ‘docs not recognize one's responsibility in the upkeep of that ‘which gives and nurtures life, then one also disregards one's responsibility for other human beings because everyone needs the natural envitonment in order to survive. ‘This chapter contemplates the human person's ethical relationship with the natural environment. Starting from one's ddusy to animals, the issues expand to one's duty towards all that have life and ultimately to the entire land or biotic community. As the current generation of humanity faces ‘more natural eatastrophes that threaten not only human life Thut all that exists on this planet, environmental ethics is ow, more than ever, erucil in adopting a way of life that is less destructive and more in tune with one's essontial place Jn nature. The main question ths section deals with i this: Does one have moral dutis towards natural things? % (CHAPTER Vil: ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS Various Approaches to Environmental Ethics Peter Singer and Tom Regan on the Ethical Treatment of Animals Peter Singer's book, Animal Liberation (1978), is one of ‘the most influential works with respect to philosophies which tackle thg ethical treatment of animals. Singer advocates equal treatment for all sentient beings, from snimals to Jaman beings. He argues that in the same way that some people ate prejudiced against other poople that aro different from them in terms of race, gender, or sexual orientation, they can also be accused of unjust prejudice against animals He observes that human beings have been treating non- Jnuman animels in a radically different manner as they do 135Paar Il: SPECIAL TOPICS IN ETHICS human beings like themselves. Singer names this behavior peciesism—the unjustifiable privileging of one's own species ‘over another. Poople often use the level of intelligence as measure for discriminating against other animels, presenting ‘thom with a justification to treat animals merely as food or ‘as any form of means to an end. Howover, Singer argues that if we use this erterion, there is essentially no valid reason for us to kill pigs for food or use chimpanzees for various medical experiments unless we include very young children for the same purposes, for it may be argued that they are Jess intelligent than adult chimpanzees. If one argues against ‘Singer and says that it is the potential for developing a higher form of intelligence that should be used as the criterion, it can still be argued the some young chimpanzees possess a higher potential for intelligence than some brain-dlammaged human beings. Where then does one draw the line? What would be the moral criterion that can determine what sort of beings ‘must be inchuded in one's moral deliberations? Is it immoral to step on grass? Should it be considered unethical to eat vegetables in the same way that Singer seems to be hinting at the fact that it isin a speciesst way of thinking that we feel justified in consuming poultry and mest? Singer holds that it isa being's sentience or capacity to suffer that must serve as the basis for including its interests in making moral choices. Ifa being eannot fee, then it has no interests, and therefore, to kick a dog is morally wrong, while crushing a stone isnot. Hence, if a being has the ability to suffer or fel pain, then its species must not get in the way ofits being. Included in the moral sphere. All beings with the capacity to suffer equally should have an equal standing from a moral perspective. Here, we see how Singer's doctrine is consistent ‘with the utilitarian doctrine. The happiness ofall beings that can feel pleasure and pain has equal weight in moral matters Singer thus advocates vegetarianism and stands against 36 ‘CHAPTER VII: ENVIRONMENTAL EtHiCs animal experimentation because these practices tnd to inflict suffering on non-human animals. In ether words, if one's ‘ction causes painful consequences on sentient beings (both ‘human and non-human), then Singer bods that this act is orally wrong ‘Tom Regan, @ Kantian deontologist, has a different approach from Singer's utilitarian perspective. He holds that certain non-human animals have actual rights, which make them morally considerable, and oddly enough itis not rationality that makes them so for him. For him it beings being an experiencing subject of a lif that makes it count as morally considerable. This means that being’s capacity for having: beliefs and desires; perception, memory, and a || sense of the future, including their own future; an motional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain; preference and welfare interests; the ability to Initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; || a psychological identity over time; and an individual || welfare inthe sense that their experiential life fares vell or il for them, logically independently oftheir [tility for others and logically independent of their | being the object of anyone ela inert. Ifa being possesses these traits, then Regan says that such a subject of a life has inherent value and should be treated as a rights-holder. Hence, for instance, i is wrong to kill animals for sport, experiment on them or use them in commeréal agriculture once itis proven that they do experience themselves as subject ofa if, More than anything, these two authors have shown that ‘human beings should net wantonly exercise their dominion Septem cnet es ely ene aaah 193,PRY Il SPECIAL TOPICS IN ETHICS ‘over other species. At the very least, humans must consider the amount of pain they may be inflicting on other sentient ‘beings no matter what the motivation. One must also try to see other animals as beings of inherent value that deserve respect. In ather words, if one is to be ethical in one's ‘treatment of animals, one must continually come up with ways of lessening their suffering or view them as beings that hhave inherent value and, therefore, deserve tobe inthe sphere of moral deliberation, Cd rovers iryouwereofmdlrectorand you weremating of aboutthe every practices of acertaintroalconmunty where rma acces provlent, how woul you go abou dectng the fi IFyeuwahtofolow Singers or Regen oguments ls there.on ethical way ofrakng you fin? Paul Taylor and Biocentrism Paul Taylor extends moral consideration fom the sphere of seftience and puts forward an argument for the moral protection of all beings that may be considered as teleological Centers of life. Whether a being is conscious or sentient is not the sole determinant ofits moral considerably. For Taylor & biocentrie outlook protect the rights ofall iving onganisms, including plants dnd microorganisms, to seek out thelr good and well-being. As teleological-oenter-oFife, an organism txists for the sake of furthering its existence by undergoing changes and processes that improve its wellbeing. In other ‘words, all organisms move towards fulfilling their own ends, Insofar as plants need water and the sun for nourishment, to ‘willfully deny them these things would constitute aviation cf their rights a tecogical-centers-fif 138 Hence, fr Taylor, human beings, much lke their plant counterparts are not-privileged members of the earth's community of life. Humans, like other organisms are contingent, biological beings that cannot absolitely guarantee their srvival. Human beings share a bond of kinship with other living organisms because it is the same netural processes that brought ol of ws to life. In fact, human beings fare relatively newoomers to the earth. ‘The pisnet has been teeming with life way before humans came into the scene, ad yet, we act like we are the sole purpose and end of natal vlutionary process. In a manner of speaking, himans net like they own the place even if lot of other beings have been residing aud securing ther place inthe natural etwionment nillons of years before humans existed. Tn fact, we depend cn plants and animals for our survival, but they do not depend on us for theirs. It may be argued that we are the ‘ost needy and eapriious of all iving organisms on earth 1m other words, biocentrinm, a the very lest, questions the common view that human beings are the highest or mast important member ofthe environment. I espouses the view that all living organisms have equal rights from an ethical perspective. Because all living organisms have welfare interests (goods oftheir own), they may be considered as having a non-subjective point of view that human beings can adopt in judging actions as good or bad relative to the welfare of the organism in question. Hence, one can say that even if crushing Jhe roots of tree with bulldozers does not hurt the trees t does harm them because it is in their interest to further thei existence. Even if plants do not have preference Interests (conscious wants or desices), their possession of welfare interests includes them in the sphere of moral considerablyany Ih SPECIAL Topics IN ETHICS ‘To argue, therefore, that humans are a superior species is considered a8 an unjustified bias from the perspective of biocentrism. As the name suggests, all that has life should ‘be treated with impartial respect. To say that humans have capacities that are more valuable than those of other beings, such as their capacity for algebra, is to unfairly judge the ‘value of capacities possessed by other beings. Whaat would the use be of algebra for a dog or a tree? Their capacities are suited for the purposes of protecting their own welfare as such beings. To say that we are a better species than them is to make the mistake of distinguishing what each species ‘needs to be able to survive. Teee climbing is worth more to a monkey than the capacity to solve math problems. Unlike Taylor's egalitarian outlook, Robin Attfield proposes a revision of biocentrism by arguing for a hierarchical view, which holds that even if all beings that hhave a good of ther own possess inherent value, some beings, namely persons, have greater intrinsic value, Hence, for ‘Attfield, although all living organisms have inherent value, some organisms may be considered as having more inherent vworth than others. Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic ‘Aldo Leopold, in his A Sand County Almanac, holds ‘ant a thing ireight when it tends to preservesthe integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong. when it tends otherwise." According to this view, the land itself, or what Leopold calls the biotic community, is considered as the locus of intrinsc value. If Singer, Regan, ‘Taylor, and Attfield place value on individual beings, Leopold thinks that i isthe very ecosystem, including sand, rocks, 140, i CHAPTER Vil: EnvinONMENTAL Exnics ‘minerals, and various natural processes that deserve moral consideration. A conerete implication of this view is that ‘the welfare of an individual member of an ecosystem is not fs valuable as the preservation of the integrity of the whole biotic community. For example, if an invasive species of rats lays waste to a vegetable farm which sustains the life of Jnuman beings and other species of animals, then the land ethic permits the most humane way of extinguishing the rat population in that area, bearing in mind that the good of the community Is paramount to that of an individual. ‘The land ethie places human existence in the context of community as part of an ecological whole. As such, human beings must not be viewed as conquerors but as members of a life-giving system. In this regard, Leopold holds that in order to establish an ethical relationship with the land, hhumans must develop not only their rational but also their ‘emotional inteligence. For him, itis only when humans lara, to feel their belongingness to the land that they develop a love for it, a bond that compels them to respect and admire the beauty and complexity of the biotic community. He proposes that humans develop an “ecological conscience” that extends social conscience from interpersonal relationships to ones relationship to the land. He posite that such a way of ‘thought ean drastically challenge and revise the time-honored distinction between humans and the rest of nature. For Leopold, the land is not merely soil, but a fountain of energy flowing through plants, animals, humans, and back. Food chains sustain life; it is» biotic pyramid that systematically produces and distributes energy flows from one source to the next, thus sustaining al life in the process. Nutrients are shared by all and every member of the community that benefits from these various ecological processes, such as photosynthesis. Leopold suggests that if humans only learn to think not just with their minds bbut with their hearts, then they cannot but be gratefulPa I: SPECIAL Tomes IN ETHICS and respectful of the community they belong to. Ecological ‘conscience is key in appreciating one's duties towards the environment. Ecological wholes deserve proper respect, for ‘everything that happens to human beings happen by vite of the life-sustaining processes inherent in the land itself, Climate Change and Sustainable Development ‘When the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) came out with the Brundtland Report Jn 1987, it became clear that the vital planetary resources and processes necessary to sustain life were under strain. The report raised a very important question: Is it equitable to sacrifice options for future well-being in favor of supporting current lifestyles? The report declares that it isnot equitable for future generations to experience a considerable reduction of options for the sake of sustaining the noods and wants of ‘the present. It was in this report that the idea of “sustainable development” was first used. Sustainable development, means “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of futuro generations to meet their ‘own needs." This notion, albeit still athropocentric in feseence, nevertheless puts the issue of human greed to the fore. As developed countries continue to use up most of the planet's ecological capital with no regard for the welfare of the ‘other developing nations with little acess to such resources, the very biological existence of future human generations becomes threatened. The very idea of equity brings up the isue of having falr and just systems of production and consumption that take into account one’s responsibility not just towards other human beings but towards nature itself. > sant et rdasueranuirentarmenalcacennths wy ‘As most countries continuo on this path of unmitigated production and consumption, it becomes clearer that Inumanity has become addicted to acquiring and eousuraing ‘that the idea of “enoughness? becomes an alien concept. This insatiable drive is what Aristotle named as the vice of pleonazia or insatiable acquisitiveness. The question is ‘whether such a drive is sustainable in the context of securing ‘the future welfare‘of the various ecosystems that essentially subsidize this drive towards accumulation. By continuing such an ultra-consumerist way of existence, humanity i shooting itsolf in the fot, as it were, blindly pushing forward without realizing that we are in auto-destruet mode. It is not only the future of the future generations of human beings that is at stake, but the existence of the very web of life or the Diotic community, which is the primary source of life for all. In other words, if one advocates the idea of sustainable development, then one must account for one's actions with respect to the environment, not only in the context ofits actual effects in the present but perhaps, more importantly, its potentially harmful effets in the future. ‘As human belngs continue to exist with such inetiailty, the earth's temperature has gone up. In the polar regions, for instance, average air temperatures have increased by 5 degrees centigrade in the Inst 100 years. The continuous Durning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas), compounded by the destruction of forests (which absorb carbon dioxide) has dramatically increased the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere land as the temperature of the planet rses, extreme weather ‘Phenomenon has become an almost normal occurrence, There is now more flooding and drought in the planet and these Ihave a dramatic impact not just on the lives of human beings ‘but on the entire ecosystem. As the oceans get warmer and the arctic glaciers melt, sea levels rise threatening coastal populations. Experts have sad that a 1.5 degrees centigrade Average rise in global temperature may put 20% to 30% ofPART Il SPECIAL TopICS IN ETHICS species at rsk of extinction. The Montreal Protocol (1989) aud the Kyoto Protocol (1997) are international etion that eck to decrease the emission of greenhouse gases that nse damage tothe ozone layer However, a one sbaeree, ‘he human population i il experiencing te fet of sng tlobel temperature In fact, experts say tht nation should fet to limit glbel warming to less than 2 degrees centigrade if they want to mitigate the long-term harm. of global warming to various ecorystems. One eds only to remember the effets of typhoons Ondoy and Yolande to understand ew serious a problem gba warming i ‘One my therfore ask, how did it come to this? How ha such young spices laid waste to uch a vast and complex environment in such a shore time? The snewers to these questions are not merely empirical bt philosophical in nature. Ineasnce, human beings may be seen as dwellers that have become tremendovsly inept i living thei ives prudently. Homans seem to lack what Avsttle has called Practical wisdom in living in ts own home, Barth. Brazim Kol beeves that it eon by realing and r-stablishing cur essential place in nature an dwellers can we initiate fendine change and reclaim our rightful place inthe biotic enmity Tes only by dwelling ethically that man beings an begin t ve hnemeonioaaly wth nature one mor. Kohak and the Human Being as Dweller ‘The thinker Erazim Kobék thinks it is the forgotten meaning of ‘culture that is at the root of the humen ‘being’ alienation from his/her environment. Culture is not merely the collection of artifacts or the manifestation of a people's tastes and appreciation of beauty. According to him, an culture traces its etymological roots from the Latin, cultus, ‘which means "the yielding of respect, honoring the sucredness| ofall that is.” Culture is not originally opposed to nature Dut is essentially understood as the human being's roe i it. ‘To be a person of culture isto be someone who recognizes the nobility of being. He adds, “the homo humanus of ancient Rome, the man of culture, is one who cultivates hs life, not leaving it at the mercy of his momentary whims and their gratification but ordering it according to its moral sense." One sees how Aristotle's notion of virtue and practical wisdom is echoed in this quotation. In such context, the Jnuman being may be considered as a rational being that has sven in to the immediate demands of physical gratification at the expense of his/her capacity to rationally locate his/her essential place in the natural environment. [Most times, human beings perceive nature as a world devoid of human existence, a pristine environment ruled by natural selection. This word is interpreted as opposed to the world of culture and civilization where skyscrapers paint the horizon and marvels of engineering, science, and technology Sl cities with artifacts of innovation and progress. Opersting within the purview of such a dichotomy, the human being is seen as an invader of nature, as a being who corrupts what Js natural and desecrates what is unspoiled by intentions of agreed or covetousness. The human person may be likened to-n bulldozer that levels nature forthe purpose of building and erecting his/her monuments that serve as testaments to the undisnitable reign of reason over all that exists. Seen in this light, to be ethical seems to imply the necessity of limiting oF minimizing the human person’ presence in nature.However, as Kohsk mentions, culture is actually the human Deing's role in nature. Tt involves the cultivation and the recognition of the value of all that exists. To be a person of| caltue i to be ethial One learns from Aristotle that being ethical has to do ‘with coming up with the correct course of action relative to the demands of a situation and his/her standing init. I is {in being habitually accustomed to choosing the mean or the ‘mesotes whercin the human being is most excellent in being himself/herself. Over the past two centuries, the human being seems to have lost control over his/her appetites and "unthinkingly give in tothe desires of material production and capital accumulation. Such a disposition has put not only the natural environment in peril but has also endangered ‘the human species pushing it further to the brink of self annihilation. As progress lays waste to nature, one sees how the human person has gradually lost his/her moral senso with respect to how he/she is supposed to manage his/her motives, desires, and actions in the context of being a dweller in nature, _ Koha claims that it is only by understanding one's esvential and moral place in nature as a dweller can one begin to mend the wounds of avarice inflicted upon nature, In relation to this, he asks human beings to reflect on how their very expensive existence in nature may be justified. Given that the human person asks so much from nature, in terms of natural resources which he/she uses to subsidize his/her needs and wants, how can one say that one's existence in nature is not only practically, bt perhaps, more importantly, morally justifiable? [A dweller is someone who resides in a particular place and calls this place his/her home. Someone who dwells is someone who recognizes the value inherent in being afforded the comfort of being received and weloomed by a place. There is 8 “sy reason why the adage, “There® no place Iike home,” resonates with human sentiment, A home nurtures one's existence for free. A home does not ask for anything othor than respect. In showing respect for one’s home, one recognizes the value inherent therein and cultivates its capacity to serve as a ‘dwelling place not Just for oneself but for others as well. In ‘other words, to dwell s to cultivate one's places it is to take fon the responsibjlty for the upkeep of that which embraces and sustains one's existence providing one with the sense of security and acceptance that may not be found anywhore ese ‘To dwell is to recognize the innate value of one's home and allowing such recognition to guide one's actions in it. One doos not destroy what one values. One does not abuse what ‘one loves. In this context, one understands just how much one ‘owes to one’s dwelling such that he/she allows this insight to ‘guide hie/her actions towards his/her home. ‘The natural environment is the human being's only home. It is a complex system that allows one to explore his/ her possibilities and sustain his/her needs even beyond the biological kind. Nature inspires artists, offers new questions to ‘the scientific-minded, and openly offers itself to the demands of material production. In the course of the human being Journey towards knowledge and contol, he/she has lost sight (of his/her essence as a dweller, as the one who has been fntrusted the responsibility not only of exploiting nature for its use but of cultivating it in a way that is proportionate to ite inherent worth, Culture becomes a thing instead of an act. ‘Culture may be, therefore, seen as the human person's ethical task in nature. It is the way one ought to dell in nature. I is in fulfilling the demands of culture that one becomes @ virtuous dweller, thereby justifying one’s place in one's hom. In Aristotelian terms, to dwell is to be an excellent human being with respect to the demands of one’s very situatedness| in the natural environment. waary Il: SPECIAL ToPICS IN ETHICS HE conciusion Ethics is often exclusively understood as the study of moral affairs between human beings. Seldom is it allowed to extend to diverse beings that seem to have lower levels ‘of consciousness or to the very environment that allows for vs (CHAPTER Vil ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS hhuman beings to think about morality in the first place. ‘This chepter has shown that the natural environment, “understood as the complex biotic community that serves a ‘the primordial source of life, deserves to be treated ethical prliaps now, more than ever, Tho disastrous effcts of climate change can no longer be swept under the rug of “collateral damage.” Human actions have consequences not ouly to ‘other human beings directly but to the very fable of lie that shelters and sustains all beings whether conscious or not, sentient or non-sentient Singer, Regan, Taylor, and Leopold have shown that the {Hme-honored place of the human being on tap of the great cchain of being is not ‘beyond question. Reason docs not necessarily make us the most important being ofall. In fact ‘8s Kohéle pereeived, it may very well be this most prejudiced Doliof that lies at the root of the environmental crisis. He hols that itis by virtue of re-establishing the hnman being’s essential nature as a dweller can one begin ta find ways of ‘becoming ethical towards nature. Ie is by cultivating practical ‘wisdom that the human being may begin to pereeive nature from a moral perspective, seving its inherent value and acting in accordance to such value. One's moral duties to the aatural environment, therefore, is no mere extension of his/her duties to his/her fellow human being. The environment deserves respect beeause it is that which makes every other form of ‘relationship possible. Environmental ethics may be argued a6 ‘more primordial than the other strains of ethies. To become ethical in the context of one's being a dweller is to be ethical to everyone and everything that counts on the environment for survival. ua @PART Il: SPECIAL Topics IN ETHICS i Study Questions How is Singer's ethical position both similar to and iferent fom Tom Regas's? What is blooentelam? What are its main claims? 3. Is Leopold's land ethic just an extension of the biocentrie outlook on nature? 4. What does Leopold mean by the term “biotic community?” 5. What is the meaning of sustainable development? How would a Kantian deontologist and a utilitarian argue for or against its validity as an etieal guide for faction? Divide the clas into two groups and debate 6. What is culture for Kohale? Why is it relevant in the study of environmental eties? 1. Think of specific environmental issue, Using Kobe's ideas on dwelling, locate the essential root of the problem. Is Kohék's position utilitarian or ontological? Explain HH Exercises A. Form small groups and draw @ biotic community. Discuss the possiblity of ereating such a community in your nation. Were would it be? What would it be ike? B. Make an artwork which portrays the nature of the Jhuman being as a dweller C. With « partner, design a campaign advertisement on ‘the value of environmental ethies in today's modern word 150 References Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1963. Kohék, Erazim. “A Human's Place in Nature." In Between the Embers and the Stars. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1984. Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983, netpy//Mibrary:thinkquest.org/11359/fucts.htmn Inetps//elimate-nasa.gov/vital-signs/lobal-temperature/ Intps/ plato stanford edn entris/ethiew envionmental/ Trak ‘UiTheConBavE‘h