(eBook PDF) Environmental Ethics:

What Really Matters, What Really Works

3rd Edition
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/ebook-pdf-environmental-ethics-what-really-matte
rs-what-really-works-3rd-edition/
 ro d u c e.
o no t rep
s e o n ly, d
e r s on al u 0 - 08 - 25
P 202

p r o du ce.
do no t re
u s e o nly,
al -25
Person 20 2 0 -0 8

r o d u c e.
o n ot rep
s e o n ly, d
er s o nal u 0 - 0 8 - 25
P 202

p ro d u ce.
d o no t re
us e o nly,
al -25
Person 20 2 0 - 08

r o du c e.
o no t rep
s e o nly, d
e r s o nal u 0 -0 8- 25
P 202

p r o d u ce.
d o n ot re
u s e o nly,
al -25
Person 20 2 0 - 0 8
 ro d u c e.
o no t rep Contents vii

s e o n ly, d
e r s on al u 0 - 08 - 25
P 202
B. Taking Responsibility 51 3
Baylor L. Johnson, “Ethical Obligations in a Tragedy
of the Commons” 51 3
Ty Raterman, “Bearing the Weight of the World: On the Extent of an
Individual’s Environmental Responsibility” 5 21
p r o du ce.
n o t r e
Dan Shahar, “Treading Lightly on the Climate in a

u s e nly, d5o31
Problem-Ridden World”
o
rson a l -0 8-25
14 P e 2 0
20 542
Caring for the Climate
Dale Jamieson , “Ethics, Public Policy, and Global Warming” 542
Philip Kitcher , “The Climate Challenge” 5 51
Darrel Moellendorf, “Justice in Climate Change Mitigation and
r o d u c e.
Adaptation Policies” 556
o n ot rep
n
John Broome , “The Most Important Thing about
s e o y, d
lClimate
Change” 559
e r s o nal u 0 - 0 8 - 25
P
Bjorn Lomborg, “Cool It” 5 61
202

15 Urban Ecology and Modern Life 565

Adriana Zuniga-Teran, “Urban Ecology” 565
.
duceManagement Pay”
o t r proWaste
Lynn Scarlett, “Making
e 572

o n l y
Bill, do n , “Deep Economy” 576
McKibben
on al use Joshua8Colt -25Gambrel and Philip Cafaro, “The Virtue
Pers 2 0 - 0
20 of Simplicity” 580
Mark Sagoff, “Do We Consume Too Much?” 589
Freya Mathews, “Letting the World Grow Old” 602
Adriana Zuniga-Teran, “Walkable Neighborhoods” 609
r o du c e.
o n o t rep
16 Taking Action 61 5 nly, d
l u s o
e Tora!
Paulrs
e o na
Watson, “Tora! 0 -0 8
Tora!”- 2615 5
P 202
J. Baird Callicott, “Environmental Philosophy Is Environmental
Activism: The Most Radical and Effective Kind” 620
Kate Rawles, “The Missing Shade of Green” 626
Andrew Light, “Taking Environmental Ethics Public” 636
p r o d u ce.
d o n ot re
u s e o nly,
al -25
Person 20 2 0 - 0 8
 ro d u c e.
o no t rep
s e o n ly, d
e r s on al u 0 - 08 - 25
P 202

p r o du ce.
PREFACE do no t re
u s e o nly,
al -25
Person 20 2 0 -0 8

r o d u c e.
o n ot rep
s e o n ly, d
u to today’s
F er s o n
eaturing accessible selections—from classicalarticles
P Really Matters, 2
research—Environmental Ethics: What
0 - 0 8 - 2 5 recent
most
02 Really Works, Third
What
Edition, explores morality in theory and practice, from an environmental perspective.
Asking what really matters, the book’s first section focuses more on abstract ideas of
human value and value in nature. The second section focuses more on what it takes to
solve real problems, answering with empirically
o d u c e . informed essays on applying environ-
mental ethics to issues that o t re
matter r now.
pright
l y n
, doof ecology, informally stated, is that we are not in charge. Every
e
One basic o n
principle
s more than 8one
r s on a l uhas - 0 5
-2reaction.
Pe action
2 0 2 0 Every action ripples out into an ecological com-
munity in somewhat unpredictable and unintended ways. An ecosystem is a moving
target. Also, an ecosystem is more like a neighborhood than a game of chess, in the
sense that the other pieces on the board—our fellow humans and members of other
species—are not pawns that we can move around at will. They each have a logic of
their own, and some (our fellow humans at least) have hopes d
r o u
and c e. and plans
dreams
n o t p our orders, as if their
refollow
of their own. If our plan requires that other people
o n o simply
, d that will be where our plan falls apart.
lythen
n s e
a uare different
own hopes and dreams werel not relevant,
- 25 and the connection is not auto-
e r s o 0 -0 8
What matters andP what works 202 questions,
matic. If we aren’t thinking hard about what works, then neither are we being serious
about what matters.
Environmental ethics is a young field, though, full of intellectual energy, and a lot
has happened. The first edition was compiled over three years. Elizabeth Willott and I
finished in 2001, and the text was published in 2002. After that, we spent the best part p r o d u ce.
o n o re
t passed
of a fruitful decade compiling materials for the second. Tragically,
o n ly, d
Elizabeth
u s e
al cancer complicated -2by5 cirrhosis
away in 2015, at the age of fifty-nine. (She died of
P e r s onlung 2 0 - 0 8
of the liver. She was a nonsmoker and a nondrinker.) 20

viii
 ro d u c e.
o n o t rep Preface ix

s e o n ly, d
r s on l u C. Shahar-came
aDan 08 - 2to5the project during our preparation of the second edition,
Pe 202 0
and indeed contributed greatly to that volume. He now joins the project as coeditor of
the third edition.

NEW TO THE THIRD EDITION

This third edition has thirty-four new articles in newtorre p r

radically
ce.
odurevised sections on
l y, d o no excellence, suffering, wilder-
the origins of environmental thought,
l u s e onhumility, human
ness, land management,
P e a
rsonfood, citizenship,
2 0 -0 8 -25and urban ecology. Many other
climate,
20 to feedback from instructors on what was
sections have been streamlined in response
being used and what was not.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project is supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. Opinionsoduce.
n o t r e pr
expressed here are those of the authors and editors and do not necessarily
o n ly , do reflect views
of the Templeton Foundation. Thanks especially tol the
n a e
usGeorgetown - 2 5
Institute for the
s o 0 8
Study of Markets and Ethics at Georgetown 2020- School of Busi-
PerUniversity’s McDonough
ness for hosting Schmidtz as a visiting scholar in the fall of 2016. Thanks also to the
Department of Political Economy at King’s College London for giving Schmidtz time
to finish this project.
This new edition has benefited greatly from the input of reviewers Lauren
o d u . Ann Lorentzen (University of San
ceLois
p r
t re State University), Darrel Moellendorf (San Diego
Hartzell-Nichols (University of Washington),
o
d o n
Francisco), Ben
us e o nly,
Minteer (Arizona
al University),0Judith 25 (Trinity University), Dan Perry (Texas Tech Univer-
-Norman
Person 08
State
2 -
0 (Carroll College), Gary Varner (Texas A&M), and Michael Weber
sity), Mark 2Smillie
(Bowling Green State University), plus two who are not named here.
Over the years, we have also been lucky to know and learn from (among many
others) Nathan Ballantyne, Scott Boocher, Jason Brennan, Chris Brown, Michael
Bukoski, Bill Dennis, Robert Ellickson, Chris Freiman, Robert Glennon,
d u c e . Nicole Has-
soun, Kristen Hessler, Robert Hood, Cathleen Johnson,
no t r e pro Kolers, Mark LeBar,
Avery
o nl y, do Robert Miller, Elissa Morris, Clare
s o na l useDon Scherer,
Andrew Light, Chris Maloney, Christina Mancuso,
-0 8 - 25 Shearmur, Don Weidner, Clark
Palmer, Carol Rose,
P e r Dan Russell,
202 0 Jeremy
Wolf, Sarah Wright, and Matt Zwolinski.
We have gotten helpful suggestions at several recent workshops in Tucson, Rocky
Mountain National Park, and Oslo, Norway, for which we thank all the participants,
including Jeremy Bendik-Keymer, David Boonin, Karol Boudreaux, Andrew Bren-
nan, Philip Cafaro, Gary Comstock, Darren Domsky, Robert Elliot, Hans Eicholz, duce.
o t r e p ro
o n ly , do n
Espen Gamlund, Steve Gardiner, Hannes Gissurarson, Ben Hale, Ned Hettinger, Alan
Holland, Dale Jamieson, Doug MacLean, Katie McShane,
o n a l u seJohn O’Neill,8-Clare
2 5 Palmer,
Jim Petrik, Paul Pojman, Holmes Rolston PerIII,s Ronald Sandler,
2020Lynn-0 Scarlett, Clive
Spash, Allen Thompson, Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes, and Jenny Welchman.
 ro d u c e.
x PREFACE
o no t rep
s e o n ly, d
e r s o n al u 0 - 08 - 25
P 202
INSTRUCTOR RESOURCES

Look up ppenetwork.org.
This network currently is maintained by Sagent Labs Inc. Our intention is that
within this network site there will be an Environmental Ethics Store where you can
access a library of supplemental readings, or add to that library by uploading any
r o e. link to your
dua cdirect
materials (consistent with the rules of fair use). You canre
ot p
establish
nmaterials
course website so that your students can
o n l y, d
access othe as well.
a l u s e -25
Person 20 2 0 -0 8

r o d u c e.
o n ot rep
s e o n ly, d
er s o nal u 0 - 0 8 - 25
P 202

p ro d u ce.
d o no t re
us e o nly,
al -25
Person 20 2 0 - 08

r o du c e.
o no t rep
s e o nly, d
e r s o nal u 0 -0 8- 25
P 202

p r o d u ce.
d o n ot re
u s e o nly,
al -25
Person 20 2 0 - 0 8
 ro d u c e.
o no t rep
s e o n ly, d
e r s on al u 0 - 08 - 25
P 202

p r o du ce.
do no t re
u s e o nly,
al -25
Person 20 2 0 -0 8

r o d u c e.
o n ot rep
s e o n ly, d
er s o nal u 0 - 0 8 - 25
P 202

p ro d u ce.
d o no t re
us e o nly,
al -25
Person 20 2 0 - 08

r o du c e.
o no t rep
s e o nly, d
e r s o nal u 0 -0 8- 25
P 202

p r o d u ce.
d o n ot re
u s e o nly,
al -25
Person 20 2 0 - 0 8
 ro d u c e.
o no t rep
s e o n ly, d
e r s on al u 0 - 08 - 25
P 202

p r o du ce.
INTRODUCTION do no t re
u s e o nly,
onal Thoughts
PersSome 2 0 -0 8 5
-2on Ethics
20

r o d u c e.
o n o t rep
s e o n ly, d
al u Arizona,0seeking
I t is dawn. We have come to the mountains of
e r s o n
eastern
P in the van, having
We left our computer back at the trailhead, 202 - 0 8 - 5
2inspiration.
no need for such fancy
technology on our hike. We do need our state-of-the-art boots, though, for the hike up
the west side of Mount Baldy is seven miles; the hike back down the east side is another
twelve. We thank Mount Baldy for this glorious morning, but in fairness we also thank

o d u c e
the van and all the other technological developments. that enabled us to be here.
We inhabit a world of o
n t re pr but environmental ethics reminds us not only
problems,
o n l
that theseemountainsy o to be and can be saved but also that they’re worth saving.
, dneed
r s on a l us - 08 -25 us how to enjoy the world, not just how to fix it.
Pe Environmental
20 2 0
ethics teaches
Not that we do not want to fix the world, of course, but fixing is a tricky, double-
edged idea. On one hand, to “fix” is to repair or improve, and there is nothing wrong
with wanting to fix things in principle. On the other, to “fix” is to stabilize or set in
place so as to prevent further change, as when we describe a mortgage rate or a lecture
schedule as fixed. Therein lies a problem, for in that second sense,
r o d u c e.
ecologies are not
n e p
ot rthat it is not fixed. An ecosys-
only , d o
fixed, and cannot be. It is of the essence of an ecosystem
l u
tem is essentially a thing in flux. s e
na being what - 25makes people nervous. Rightly or
ersonature 0 - 0 8
Of course, Phuman 202 it is, flux
wrongly, we feel more secure when things are “fixed.” So, we want to “fix” our ecosys-
tem, but we cannot. Not without turning it into something other than the ongoing
process it is. Ecosystems evolve. Human society evolves. Something decays and is lost
in the process. Always. And we, like generations before us and generations to come,
will lament its passing. There probably has never been a generation that did not view p r o d u ce.
d o n ot rehere.
its world as going to hell in one way or another. We are only human.
s e o n ly, Still, we are
We are now. Shouldn’t we enjoy it?
s onal u - 0 8 -25
P e r
Or perhaps “enjoy” is too mild a word to describe what it2is 2 0
0like to be among wind-
carved rocks, hearing the call of a crow, wondering for how many eons that call has
echoed from that perch. Or stopping to count the growth rings in a fallen Ponderosa

2
 ro d u c e.
o no t rep Introduction 3

s e o n ly, d
e r s on al u 0 - 08 - 25 ever seen, and giving up at 150, each of us silently aware
P Pine, one
202
of the biggest we’ve
that it was Aldo Leopold who inspired us to stop and look. Or stopping just short of
Baldy’s summit out of respect for the fact that the summit is marked as sacred ground
by the Apache, wondering where the Apache were in 1492, wondering whether they
already regarded this land as sacred when Columbus was still looking for a shorter
route to India.
t r e pr oduce.
, do n o
s e o nl y
r s o na l uAS -0 8-25PHILOSOPHY
Pe
ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
20 2 0
A BRANCH OF

Throughout this book, we avoid jargon as much as we can. There are, however, some
basic terms you need to know. The discipline of philosophy can be divided into fields.
Typically it is divided into three. In the simplest terms: metaphysics is the study of the
fundamental nature of reality; epistemology is the study of knowledge and how we ac-
r o d u c e.
quire it; ethics is the study of goodness and rightness—what makes one outcome better
o n o t rep
than another, and (not the same question) what makes one outcome
s e o n ly, d rather than an-
other the one that is most worth striving for. To
e r s o n al u matters
complicate
0 - 0 -
in8the 5 world,
2real
possible outcomes include not only what P you get, but what2you 02become. What kind of
person you want to be is, on some views, the most important question you will ever ask.
The study of ethics generally is guided by certain presuppositions. Among the main
presuppositions are these. First, we are more or less rational beings, capable of under-
standing the world. Second, we can act on theebasis
o d u c . of what we understand. Third, our
actions can serve a purpose—we
no t r e prmake a difference.
can
o n
Ethicseitself l
cany dodivided into subfields. Normative ethics is the study of rightness
, be
r s on a l us and goodness - 0 8 5 of affairs. Descriptive ethics is the study of opinions
-in2states
Pe in action
20 2 0
or beliefs about what is right and good. (Descriptive ethics often is considered to be
the domain of anthropology, say, not philosophy. However, we insist on separating
normative from descriptive ethics in order to emphasize that seeking the truth about
ethics is not the same as cataloging opinions about ethics.) The third subfield, metaeth-
ics, studies the meanings and presuppositions of moral theories
o du c
and . language
emoral
o t r
reInpeffect, then, where norma-
and asks what it would be like to justify a moral o n
theory.
, d about what is right and good, meta-
lytheories
s e o n
tive ethics is the enterprise of
e r s o n al uformulating
0 -0 8 - 25 by theorizing about it.
ethics steps back P to ask what we 202
hope to accomplish
Within the subfield of normative ethics, we formulate theories of the good, some-
times called theories of value. We also formulate theories of the right. (“Good” and
“right” often are interchangeable in ordinary use, but in philosophy we treat rightness as
pertaining to what we should do, whereas goodness pertains to what we should want.)
When we try to apply the results of normative ethics to questions of practical policy p r o d u ce.
o n o e
t rrealm
and personal conduct such as those discussed in this volume, welymove
o n , d into the
u s e
l currently -are -25 ethics,
of applied ethics. The primary areas within applied
P e r s onaethics 2 0 0 8medical
business ethics, and environmental ethics. 20
Yet, lumping the three together is misleading. Business and medicine are profes-
sions, typically studied in separate professional schools rather than in colleges of art
and science; thus business ethics and medical ethics currently are forms of professional
 ro d u c e.
4 INTRODUCTION
o n o t rep
s e o n ly, d
e r s o n al uin large measure
0 - 08 - 25
P ethics
202 (although this may change). By contrast, the environment is
not a profession, there are no environmental schools in the way there are professional
schools in medicine and business, and environmental ethics is not the study of ethical
issues specific to any particular occupation.
Environmental ethics is of course a way of applying normative ethics to a particular
set of practical issues, but it also is a relatively new way of doing
p r o du ce.
normative ethics in
o r e
t other, and to ourselves, given
noeach
general. Environmental ethics asks what we owe
l y, d to
on if anything,5we owe to nonhuman animals, to
our ecological context. It also
a l u s
askse what,
-2 even to ecosystems themselves. We
erson wonders,2to02
plants, to fragilePgeological 0-08and
species,
ask what kind of life we should want to live, and what kind of world we should want to
live in. We study the value of human life and the value of life in general. In short, part
of the beauty of environmental ethics is that it not only applies but also encompasses
normative ethics.
r o d u c e.
Much of the history of moral philosophy revolves around the project of articulat-
o n o t rep
ing an adequate theory of morality. How do we construct a moral
o n d
ly, theory? We begin
by asking a moral question, which is roughlyotonsay, s e
al ua question 0about - 25 makes a
e r s - 0 8 what
particular kind of thing right or good, P 202the subject matter of
and that question defines
our subsequent theorizing. For example, we might ask what makes an act right. We
could have asked more specifically what makes an act permissible, or what makes an
act obligatory. Or we could have asked about a different subject altogether, something
other than acts. For example, we could ask about
o d u c e . rules, laws, institutions, or character
traits. Going even further, we
n o t re prgo way beyond what philosophers typically ask
could
o n l y o a particular specialization legitimate, or a particular ju-
, dmakes
n
about, and
a e ask what
l us or a particular 5 of managing traffic. If it is wrong for a traffic cop to be
-2way
Pe r s o risdiction, 2 0 - 08
20
presuming to pick people’s destinations for them, why is it wrong? Is it wrong because
it would be ridiculously inefficient to meddle in other people’s lives that way, or is it
wrong because it would be outrageously disrespectful?
If we ask what makes an action right, one plausible answer is that the right action is
the one that does as much good as possible. Roughly speaking, this
r o du e. theory known
iscthe
n o t p Stuart Mill, and it is one
reJohn
as utilitarianism. The theory is most often associated
o n o with
ly, d theory: What makes an act right is not
of the simplest theories we have.
n lu
agood s e
An alternative
- 25it respects what is good. Associated
e r s o 0 -0 8
P
whether it promotes what is so 202
much as whether
most often with Immanuel Kant, this theory is known as deontology and says, a bit more
precisely, that an action is right if, but only if, it expresses respect for all persons as ends
in themselves and therefore treats no person merely as a means to further ends.
Yet another alternative, virtue theory, is so different it might be best to see it not
as an alternative answer to the same question but as responding to a different ques- p r o d u ce.
o n o re is
t what
tion altogether. Associated most often with Aristotle, virtue theory
o n ly, d
tells us that
u s e
l courageous, -25 honest,
right is to be a certain kind of person, a person of
P e r s onavirtue: 2 0 - 0 8
modest,
evenhanded, industrious, wise. Moral life is less about doing 20the right thing and more
about taking the best of our potential as persons and making it real.
We wish we could simply tell you which of these theories is right, then specify
in simple terms what that correct theory tells you to do. For better or worse, though,
 ro d u c e.
o no t rep Introduction 5

s e o n ly, d
e r s on al ulife is more0complicated
- 08 - 25 than that. The three theories just described are the main
P moral
202
theories we discuss in introductory classes in moral philosophy, but few philosophy
professors believe that any of them expresses the whole truth about morality. Each
contains a grain of truth. None can be treated as infallible.
We all need to understand, then, that the key to morality will not be found in a
d u
jingle, or even in a sophisticated professional code of ethics. oMorality
p r ce.is complex. It
o n o e does. You may come to
t rchess
calls for creativity and judgment in the same d way that
nly, algorithm that picks out the winning play
the game of chess hoping tol learnu s e ao
simple 5
no matter whatP the sona For human
ersituation. 20 2 0 -0 8 -2though,
players, there is no algorithm. There
is no substitute for creativity and good judgment, for the ability to think ahead and
expect the unexpected. Even something as simple as a game of chess is full of surprises,
yet the complexity involved in playing chess is nothing compared to the complexity
involved in being moral.
r o d u c e.
Perhaps our first and most important practical task, then, is to understand e
o n ot r p
what
we should not be hoping for. What we naturally hope for isnto
s e o ly,bed given a list of
rules or a code of professional conduct. When
e r s o n al uphilosophers
moral
0 - 0 8
try 5 applied
to2do
-
ethics, though, it becomes apparent that P there is something 2
20artificial and unhelpful
about trying to interpret morality as a set of rules. Rules function in our reasoning
as trump cards. If we have a rule, and can believe with complete confidence that the
rule ought to be followed, and if we ascertain that a certain course of action is forbid-
den by the rule, that settles it. The rule trumps
o d u c e . all further reasoning, so no further
reasoning is necessary.
no t re pr
e o n
How comfortingl y, dit owould be to have such rules. And of course, sometimes the situ-
on a lu s is rule-governed.
8 -25 Not always, though. Often, there are reasons favoring
Pe r s ation actually
20 2 0 - 0
an action, and reasons against, and neither trumps the other.
It may still be possible, though, to decide in a principled way. Principles are not
like rules. Where rules function in our reasoning like trump cards, principles function
like weights. If the applicable moral rule forbids X, then X is ruled out, so to speak. In
contrast, principles can weigh against X without categorically ruling ducoute.X.
n ot r e pro
o n
If you need to figure out what to do, don’t l y
look,for o Look for principles.
drules.
s o n a l use -0 8- 25 in describing their
er
Consider anPanalogy. 202
Home builders 0 might say, approach to
building houses, “You have to minimize ductwork.” Question: Is that a rule or a prin-
ciple? The answer is that, interpreted as a rule, it would be silly. As a rule, it would
say, no matter what weighs in favor of more extensive ductwork, minimize ductwork,
period. In other words, zero ductwork?
In fact, “minimize ductwork” is a good principle rather than a bad rule. As a prin- p r o d u ce.
d o n o t re
s e o n ly,
ciple, it tells home builders to be mindful of energy wasted and living space consumed
when heated or cooled air is piped to remote parts
s onof u
althe house. Other
- 0 8 -25equal, get
things
P e r
the air to where it has to go by the shortest available route. 2 2 0
0 principle will seldom
This
outweigh the principle that the ceiling should be a minimum of seven feet above the
floor. That is to say, it is not a trump, but it does have weight. A good builder designs
houses with that principle in mind, but does not treat the principle as if it were a rule.
 ro d u c e.
6 INTRODUCTION
o no t rep
s e o n ly, d
r s o n l u students -sign
aWhen 08 - 5 courses in ethics, some of the most conscientious come
2for
P e 202 0 up
hoping to learn the moral rules. It is a shock when we say we have been teaching ethics
for thirty years, but for the most part, we don’t know the moral rules, and we suspect
there are too few to give comprehensive guidance regarding how we ought to live.
When making real-world practical decisions, the relevant considerations are more
often principles than rules. So why, when we look to moral philosophy,
p r o d u ce.do we hope to
us n
o o e The idea of following a
t rrules?
find rules rather than principles? What makes
o d want
nlyof, relieving us of moral responsibility. If we
u s e
rsontoalguarantee -25 Unlike rules, principles offer no
rule is comforting, because it has the feel
Piteseems 2 0 -0 8
follow the rules, 20 our innocence.
such escape. Rules are things we follow. Principles are things we apply. Principles leave
us with no doubt as to who is responsible for weighing them, for making choices, and
for bearing the consequences of those choices.
The upshot, and it is fundamental to understanding what being a moral agent is
r o d u c e.
like in the real world: If you need to figure out what to do, don’t look for rules;elook
o n ot r p
for principles. Needless to say, this too is a principle, not a rule. n
o d
y, exceptions.
It lhas There
n s e
al uconsiderations. - 25
are, after all, rules. Rules sometimes do trumpo
e r s all other
2
P ran now-infamous20experiments 0 - 0 8
A few decades ago, Stanley Milgram on the phe-
nomenon of obedience to authority. Volunteer subjects were told the experiment was
designed to test whether we can enhance learning by using pain to motivate subjects
to pay maximum attention to the learning task. A volunteer test giver watches as a test
taker (actually an actor) is strapped down to aechair
o d u c . and wired to a machine that deliv-
o t
ers the pain in the form of electricr e r The volunteer is asked by the experimenter
pshock.
l y, do n
anmultiple-choice
l u s e
to administer o 5
word association test, and in the event of an incorrect
a 2
- sends the electric shock to the test taker. The test giver is also
Person
answer, to hit a 2
2 0 0-08that
switch
instructed to increase the voltage by fifteen volts after each incorrect answer, beginning
at fifteen and eventually going beyond four hundred and fifty volts to settings marked
XXX. After a few (scripted) mistakes the test taker howls with pain, complains of heart
pain, then collapses into apparent unconsciousness.
The volunteers for the most part had no idea that it was an
r o d u c
act.eIn. films of the
experiments, volunteer typically are extremelyoagitated, no t p
rebegging the experimenter to
n l y, d
check the condition of the test
n a l u s e oto make sure-2he5was all right, repeatedly begging
taker
the experimenter o
Petorsdiscontinue 20-08 But when firmly told to continue
20experiment.
the
with the experiment, volunteers most often did. Volunteers kept asking multiple-
choice questions, to which the apparently dead or unconscious test taker did not
respond. Having been instructed to treat nonanswers as incorrect answers, many of
the volunteers kept sending ever more powerful electric shocks to that seemingly dead
or unconscious body.1 p r o d u ce.
d o n ot reand
Needless to say, there is a moral rule against strapping downly
e o n ,
innocent people
torturing them to death. It is safe to say none of the l u s
onavolunteer test givers 8 -25 unaware
were
P e r s
of this rule. Yet, when told to break this rule, they did. Why? 2 0 - 0
20It seems that they broke
the rule for no reason other than that they were told to do so. They did not wish to
break the rule. Indeed, it was agonizing. Many were hysterical. However, they simply
lacked whatever psychological resources a person needs in order to be able to disobey
 ro d u c e.
o no t rep Introduction 7

s e o n ly, d
e r s on al u order from0-someone
08 - 25perceived as an authority, even when they know that what
P a direct
202
they are being ordered to do is wrong.
Perhaps you feel sure that, if it had been you, you would not have obeyed. But no
one thinks they would have obeyed. On the other hand, we just gave you this warn-
ing about the electric shock experiments, and we hope that will help you some day.
But what if you were a Morton Thiokol engineer presenting your
p r o du ce.with reason to
boss
o n o renot safe? What if your boss
t are
believe that seals on the space shuttle’s booster d rocket
ly, to continue? As it actually happened, the
onyou
told you that the experimentl u s e
requires
-25 space shuttle was launched.
engineers bowed sona and let2it0go.
Petorauthority -08Challenger
20The
Seconds later, it exploded. The engineers’ worst fears were confirmed.
Now, imagine yourself in their position, prior to the launch. Part of the problem is
that if you refuse to back down and succeed in aborting the launch, there will always
be an unanswered question. Perhaps the program will be halted until the seals are
r o d u c e.
redesigned at great expense. The faulty seals would never be tested under full opera-
o n ot rep
tion. You might be fired without anyone (including you!) evernknowing
s e o ly, d whether you
were right or whether you were a troublemaking
e r s o n al u You would
lunatic.
0 - 0 8
be - 25 enough
smart
to see that. P 202
When your turn comes, will you also be smart enough, and brave enough, to sound
the alarm anyway? In the heat of the moment, will you remain calm enough to be able
to call vividly to mind a picture of the kind of person you want to be?2 In the heat of
the moment, will you realize that while life has
o d u c e.just raised the price of being that kind
of person, it has not changed o t re
your r for resolving to be that kind of person?
preason
l y, dfor n
o a moral code, the test of a code is not that it presents us with
n
areolooking
If we e
r s on a l usto all questions,
- 08 -2but5 that it helps us to decide what questions to ask, when to
Pe answers
20 2 0
ask them, and when not to settle for easy answers. Moral philosophy’s value is not so
much in the information it gives us regarding how to pass the test. Moral philosophy
can indeed help us prepare for the test. But moral philosophy prepares us not so much
by giving us the answers as by training us to recognize when the test has begun.

r o du c e.
o no t rep
Moral philosophy prepares us not so much by giving us the answers as by training us to recognize
when the test has begun.
s e o n ly, d
r s o n lu
athe -0 8 - 25 never to treat persons merely as
P e
We defined deontology as 202
theory 0
that one ought
means but also as ends in themselves, not to be sacrificed to the ends of others. Accord-
ing to Immanuel Kant, another way to express the same idea is to say we ought to do
only that which we could will to be a universal law. Whether this truly is the same idea
is debatable, but in any case this new formulation contains a thought about the secret
of being moral that has considerable value in practical terms. The thought is this: Act p r o d u ce.
o n o e
t rwhole
o n ly,
in such a way that you would be willing to let your action be presented d to the
u s e
world as an example of how a person ought to act.
P e r s onaIfl you are0doing
2 0 - 8-2
that,
0 5 you are
then
2
doing the right thing, or at least trying to the best of your ability.
Studying moral theory can make a person wiser, perhaps, but it is not obvious how
the process works. Learning is somewhat mysterious. Especially when we are learn-
ing something that is more a skill than a list of facts, it can be hard to describe what
 ro d u c e.
8 INTRODUCTION
o n o t rep
s e o n ly, d
r s o n l u learned or-how.
ahave 08 - 5 we know there is such a thing as learning how to ride
2Thus,
P e we
202 0
a bicycle, yet we cannot teach a person to ride a bicycle simply by explaining how to
do it. Being moral is like that. As teachers of moral philosophy, we try to explain how
to be moral. But if our students are learning to be moral in our classrooms, it is not
because they are memorizing information. Ethics is more skill than dogma. If students
du
are learning to be moral, it is because they are getting a feel forowhat
p r citeis.like to wrestle
o n o e practicing the art of acting
t rare
ly, d
with hard choices. At least in their imaginations, they
a use on
with integrity in cases wherel integrity is not without5cost.
-2
Person 202 0 -0 8
NUMBERS DO NOT ALWAYS COUNT

Adam Smith was one of the greatest moral philosophers who ever lived. He also is
credited with inventing economics as an academic discipline. Here is what he says
about, in effect, playing God with other people’s lives. oduce. t r e pr
, n o
o so enam-
doften
e o n ly
s o n a l uofsgovernment,
The man of system . . . is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is
- 0 8 - 25cannot
oured with the supposed beauty of hisP er
own ideal plan
202 0 that he
suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely
and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong
prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different
members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces

p ro d u ce.
upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have
d o no t re
no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but
us e o nly,
al -25
that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of
Person 20 2 0 - 08
motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to
impress upon it.3

Smith’s point is as relevant as ever. In moral philosophy, there has been much discus-
sion of the following kind of case: Imagine that five patients lie on operating tables
o d
about to die for lack of suitable organ donors. A United Parcel Serviceu c .
edelivery person
e p r
t rall five patients. If you kidnap
ofor
, d o
walks into the hospital. She is a suitable organ donorn
ly five and killing one. Should you do it?
l u s e obensaving
her and harvest her organs, you
e r s o n a will
0 -0 8 - 25
Why or why not? P 202
The answer is not simply a matter of numbers, of one versus five. The issue is more
centrally a matter of trust. What gives society its utility for those who live in it? The
answer is trust. Hospitals serve their purpose only when people can trust hospitals to
treat patients and everyone else as rights bearers. Institutions have utility by creating
conditions under which people can trust each other not to operate in a utilitarian way, p r o d u ce.
o n o e
ttormaxi-
as if other people were simply pawns to be moved around in such
o n ly, adway as
u s e
mize the overall good.
P e r s onal 2 0 - 0 8 -25
Moral institutions work not so much by aiming at the best 20 result as by imposing
constraints on individual pursuits so as to bring individual pursuits into better har-
mony with each other. Institutions (e.g., hospitals) serve the common good by creating
opportunities for mutual benefit, then trusting individuals to take advantage of them.
 ro d u c e.
o no t rep Introduction 9

s e o n ly, d
r s on l u there are-0two
aeffect, 8- 25 to the sense in which
Pe In
202 0 sides institutional utility is based on
trust. First, people have to be able to trust their society to treat them as rights bearers,
not as mere pawns. Second, society has to trust people to make use of opportunities
that people have as rights bearers within society. Even from a utilitarian perspective,
then, numbers do not always count. There are times when simply treating values with
respect is the best we can do to promote them.
p r o du ce.
do n o
So, the principle here is: Consider the consequences.t reHowever, when applying this
u s e o nly,considering consequences, there are times
l
principle, we must realize that,
nacount.
sonot
even when
-0 8 -25
when the numbers Perdo 20
They 2 0
paint a misleading picture of what is really at
stake.
Here is one more illustration: a case that I used to present in my ethics courses.
TROLLEY :A trolley is rolling down a track on its way to killing five people. If you switch to
another track on which there is only one person, you will save five and kill one.
r o d u c e.
o n ot ep
rswitch
s e o n y dto Kazakhstan, I
When I presented the TROLLEY case, and asked audiences whether,they
ltrip would

r s o n lu
tracks, most would say, “There has to be anotheraway!” On a
- 0 8 - 25
presented the case to an audience of P e 202
twenty-one professors 0
from nine post-Soviet
republics, and they said the same thing. I responded as I always did, saying, “Please,
stay on topic. I’m trying to illustrate a point here. To see the point, you need to decide
what to do when there is no other way.” When I said this to my class of post-Soviet
professors, though, they responded in a way no audience of mine ever had. They
o d u . two of them quietly said (as others
cethen
spoke briefly among themselves
o p
in r
t re me straight in the eye), “Yes, we understand. We
Russian,
nodded, everynone ly, d
of o
themn looking
u s e o
al heard this before. 25our lives we were told the few must be sacrificed for the
-All
Person - 0 8
have
2 0
20We were told there is no other way. What we were told was a lie. There
sake of many.
was always another way.”
They were right. The real world does not dictate that there is no other way. Justice
is about respecting the separateness of persons. We are not to sacrifice one person for
the sake of another. If we find ourselves seemingly called on to sacrifice
r o d u c e.the few for the
sake of the many, justice is about finding another n
o o t
way. rep
To summarize, being moral is s e n ly, da matter of following rules. Nevertheless,
notosimply
al u principles0(many
ersoasnmoral - 0 8 - 5 than can be enumerated in a
2more
there are such P things
202
useful written code) that carry considerable weight and that fairly reliably lead us in
the right direction. One example: Consider the consequences. However, do not treat
people as if they were numbers, such that it appears permissible simply to sacrifice low
numbers for the sake of high ones. Instead, treat all persons as ends in themselves.
One way to do philosophy is from the armchair, without facts. Would it be rightoduce.
n o t r e pIsr
to convert all the golf courses into marshland? To shut down all the d
e o n ly , oseeds? Wrong
factory farms?

s o n a us
it wrong for Monsanto to develop and sell geneticallyl engineered cotton
- 0 8 5
-2sell
for farmers to buy and plant genetically e r
Pengineered 20
seed, and 2 0
eventually the har-
vest? Wrong for our colleagues in the agricultural sciences to advise cotton farmers as
best they can on how to use the new seed while minimizing harmful environmental
impacts? Wrong for you to support this whole system when you buy clothing made
 ro d u c e.
10 INTRODUCTION
o n o t rep
s e o n ly, d
r s o n lu
agenetically - 08 - 5 Wrong not to shut down all fossil fuel consumption
2cotton?
Pe of
202 0
engineered
right now, even if only to atone for contributing to climate change?
We could try to answer these questions by consulting our abstract theories, backed
by intuitions, fears, and uninformed assumptions. It is hard to avoid the thought,
though, that doing environmental ethics without gathering pertinent facts is, in a
word, unethical. Accordingly, while this book necessarily is o
r d u
about e. theory, it
cabstract
n o t re p
o nl y, o
also explores the efforts of various authors todlearn how the world actually works. We

o n a l
hope you enjoy both parts, and u sethank you for
we
8 - 2 5
taking a look. In the following pages,
Pers Indeed, we2have
we ask many questions. 020more-0 questions than answers. This is partly
for pedagogical reasons, but also because some questions are too hard to settle here.
We hope that you find our questions interesting, and that you enjoy the challenge of
reaching your own conclusions.

r o d u c e.
rep
NOTES
o n o t
1.
s e n
But for some doubts about the record-keeping, conduct, andoresults ly, ofd this experiment
s o n a u
thel deception, 0
and-how8 - 25 subjects
P e
(for example, how many subjects were fooledr by
0 many
2 New Press, 2012).
20York:
actually obeyed) see Gina Perry, Behind the Shock Machine (New
2. A word of caution. Unwary readers could think of this idea as vaguely egoistic, without
bothering to sort out what they mean by egoism. Suffice it to say, there is a world of dif-
ference between thinking that morality is centrally about getting as much good as you can
get and thinking (a part of) morality is centrally about being as good a person as you can
p ro d u ce.
d o n t re
be. Only the former is egoistic in the normal pejorative sense of the word.
o
us e nly,
3. Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Press, 1976), Part VI
o
al -25
Person 8
(“Of the Character of Virtue”).
20 2 0 - 0

r o du c e.
o no t rep
s e o nly, d
e r s o nal u 0 -0 8- 25
P 202

p r o d u ce.
d o n ot re
u s e o nly,
al -25
Person 20 2 0 - 0 8
 ro d u c e.
o no t rep
s e o n ly, d
e r s on al u 0 - 08 - 25
P 202
1

p r o du ce.
HOW WElyGOT o no re
tHERE
o n , d
al u s e -25
Person 20 2 0 -0 8

RODERICK FRAZIER NASH

r o d u c e.
OLD WORLD ROOTS OF OPINION o n ot rep
s e o n ly, d
er s o nal u 0 - 0 8 - 25
P 202

The land is the Garden of Eden before them, and behind immigrants approached North America with a cluster
of preconceived ideas about wilderness. This intel-
ce.
them a desolate wilderness.
p ro d u
t re
—Joel 2:3 lectual legacy of the Old World to the New not only
d o n o
s e o n ly, helped determine initial responses but left a lasting
u
E r s on a
uropean l
discoverers
Pe were familiar with
and
20 - 0
20wilderness
2
settlers-of
8 5the New World
even before they
imprint on American thought.
The value system of primitive man was structured
crossed the Atlantic. Some of this acquaintance was in terms of survival. He appreciated what contributed
first-hand, since in the late Middle Ages a considerable to his well-being and feared what he did not control or
amount of wild country still existed on the Continent. understand. The “best” trees produced food or shelter
Far more important, however, was the deep resonance while “good” land was flat, fertile, and well watered.
of wilderness as a concept in Western thought. It was
r o du c e.
Under the most desirable of all conditions the living
o no t rep
ly, d
instinctively understood as something alien to man— was easy and secure because nature was ordered in the
s e o n
e r s o nal u
an insecure and uncomfortable environment against
0 -0 8- 25 interests of man. Almost all early cultures had such a
P 202
which civilization had waged an unceasing struggle.
The Europeans knew the uninhabited forest as an
conception of an earthly paradise. No matter where
they were thought to be or what they were called, all
important part of their folklore and mythology. Its paradises had in common a bountiful and beneficent
dark, mysterious qualities made it a setting in which natural setting in accord with the original meaning of
the prescientific imagination could place a swarm of the word in Persian—luxurious garden. A mild climate
demons and spirits. In addition, wilderness as fact
p r o d ce.
constantly prevailed. Ripe fruit dropped from every
u
and symbol permeated the Judeo-Christian tradition. ot re
bough, and there were no thorns to prick reaching
d o n
Anyone with a Bible had available an extended lesson
e o nly,
hands. The animals in paradise lived in harmony with
u s
al -25
in the meaning of wild land. Subsequent Christian
history added new dimensions. As a result, the first
Person 0 - 0 8
man. Fear as well as want disappeared in this ideal
20 2
state of nature.1

Roderick Frazier Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 4th ed. (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, [1967] 2001),
pp. 8–22.

11
 ro d u c e.
12 HOW WE
WE GOT
GOT HERE
HERE
o n o t rep
s e o n ly, d
e r s on al uwas early man’s
0 - 08 - 25 good, wilder- agriculture,
P If paradise
202 greatest
ness, as its antipode, was his greatest evil. In one con-
city walls, laws, arms, roads.” These en-
abled man to control wild nature and achieve relative
dition the environment, garden-like, ministered to his security. Cultural refinements and “all charms of life”
every desire. In the other it was at best indifferent, fre- followed the release from the wilderness.3
quently dangerous, and always beyond control. And When Lucretius, Horace, Virgil and their contem-
in fact, it was with this latter condition that primitive
p r o d ce.
poraries confessed their love of “nature” and expressed
u
man had to contend. At a time when there was no al-
do no t re a desire to leave the towns for a “natural” way of life,

u s e o nly,
ternative, existence in the wilderness was forbidding
al -25
Person -0 8
indeed. Safety, happiness, and progress all seemed
20 2 0
dependent on rising out of a wilderness situation. It
became essential to gain control over nature. Fire was
one step; the domestication of some wild animals an-
other. Gradually man learned how to control the land
and raise crops. Clearings appeared in the forests. This
reduction of the amount of wilderness defined man’s
achievement as he advanced toward civilization. But
progress was slow. For centuries the wild predomi-
nated over the precarious defenses thrown up against
its influence. Men dreamed of life without wilderness.
Significantly, many traditions located paradise on an
island or in some other enclosed area. In this way the
wild hinterland normally surrounding and threaten-
they meant the pastoral or rural environment. Lucre-
tius, for one, applauded the efforts of the first farm-
ers whose labor “forced the forests more and more to
climb the mountain-sides.” This made room for the
cultivated landscape that was so highly prized. It con-
sisted of “fields, . . . crops, and joyous vineyards, and a
gray-green strip of olives to run in between and mark
r o d u c e.
o n ot rep
divisions, . . . adorned and interspersed with pleasant
s e o n ly, d
fruits, and fenced by planting them all round with
er s o al u 0 - 0 - 25
fruitful trees.”4 If this was the ideal, wilderness could
n 8
P 202
only be forbidding and repulsive.
While the inability to control or use wilderness
was the basic factor in man’s hostility, the terror of the
wild had other roots as well. One was the tendency of
the folk traditions of many cultures to associate wil-

p ro d u ce.
ing the first communities was eliminated. Wilderness derness with the supernatural and monstrous. There

d o no t re
had no place in the paradise myth.
us e o nly,
The wilds continued to be repugnant even in
al -25
Person 20 2 0 - 08
as relatively advanced civilizations as those of the
Greeks and Romans. The celebrations of nature, which
abound in classical literature, are restricted to the cul-
tivated, pastoral variety. The beautiful in nature was
closely related to the fruitful or otherwise useful.2 The
Roman poet of the first century B.C., Titus Lucretius
Carus, spoke for his age in De Rerum Natura when he
o no t repClassical mythology contained a whole menagerie
o nly, d
observed that it was a serious “defect” that so much of
s e
r s o nal u
the earth “is greedily possessed by mountains and the
e 0 -0 8- 25 places. Pan, the lord of the woods, was pictured as
P 202
forests of wild beasts.” Apart from the areas man had
civilized, it “is filled full of restless dread throughout
her woods, her mighty mountains and deep forests.”
Yet Lucretius took hope because “these regions it is
generally in our power to shun.”
Turning to history, Lucretius drew a grim portrait
of precivilized life in the wilderness. Men lived a night-
al
Person
marish existence, hounded by dangers on every hand
and surviving through the ancient code of eat or be
eaten. With obvious satisfaction, Lucretius related how
the race escaped this miserable condition through the
invention of clothing, metals, and, eventually, “ships,
was a quality of mystery about the wilderness, particu-
larly at night, that triggered the imagination. To fright-
ened eyes the limbs of trees became grotesque, leaping
figures, and the wind sounded like a weird scream.
The wild forest seemed animated. Fantastic creatures
of every description were thought to lurk in its depths.
Whether propitiated with sacrifices as deities or re-
r o du c e.
garded as devils, these forest beings were feared.5
of lesser gods and demons believed to inhabit wild
having the legs, ears, and tail of a goat and the body
of a man. He combined gross sensuality with bound-
less, sportive energy. Greeks who had to pass through
forests or mountains dreaded an encounter with Pan.
Indeed, the word “panic” originated from the blind-
p r o d u ce.
t re
ing fear that seized travelers upon hearing strange cries
d o n o
u s e o nly,
in the wilderness and assuming them to signify Pan’s
-25
approach. Related to Pan were the tribe of satyrs—
2 0 - 0 8
20
goat-men of a demoniacal character devoted to wine,
dancing, and lust. They were thought to appear only
at night and then solely in the darkest parts of the
forest. According to Hellenic folklore, satyrs ravished
 ro d u c e.
o no t rep
s e o n ly, d
r s o n l u off children
acarried - 08 - 25ventured into
Pe
women and
202 0 who
their wilderness lairs. Sileni and centaurs completed
the Greek collection of forest spirits. These monsters
had the torso and head of a man and the body and legs
of a goat or horse. Usually, they were represented as
carrying a club in the form of an uprooted tree which
do no
also served as a reminder of their favorite habitat. In t re for waters shall break forth in the wilderness and
u s e o nly,
Roman mythology satyr-like figures appeared as fauns
al -25
Person -0 8
and also lurked in thickly wooded regions.6
20 2 0
In early folk belief, the wildernesses of central
and northern Europe also swarmed with supernatural
beings. Some were worshipped, but generally with the
fear characteristic of the attitude of the unsophisticated
toward the incomprehensible. Others received clas-
sification as demons and cohorts of the devil. In the
Scandinavian countries, for instance, it was thought
that when Lucifer and his followers were expelled from
heaven, some landed in the forests and became Wood- P 202
Sprites or Trolls. Many of the medieval European
monsters were lineal descendants of the man-beasts of
classical mythology. Russian, Czech, and Slovak folk-
lore spoke of a creature living in forests and moun-
p ro d u ce.
tains with the face of a woman, body of a sow, and legs
d o no t re
of a horse.7 In Germany, when storms raged through
us e o nly,
the forests, it was widely believed that the ghostly
al -25
Person 20 2 0 - 08
Wild Huntsman was abroad with his pack of baying
hounds, riding furiously and killing everything in his
path. Man-eating ogres and the sinister werewolves
were also identified with wild, remote regions. While
in certain circumstances forest beings, like the elves,
could be helpful to men, most were considered terrify-
ing and added to the repulsiveness of wilderness.8
s e o n ly, d
...
e r s o nal u 0 -0 8- 25
The Old Testament reveals 202
P that the ancient Hebrews
regarded the wilderness as a cursed land and that they
associated its forbidding character with a lack of water.
Again, and again “the great and terrible wilderness”
was described as a “thirsty ground where there was no
water.” When the Lord of the Old Testament desired
to threaten or punish a sinful people, he found the
Person
wilderness condition to be his most powerful weapon:
“I will lay waste the mountains and hills, and dry up
all their herbage; I will turn the rivers into islands, and
dry up the pools. . . . I will also command the clouds
that they rain no rain upon it.”9
Old World Roots of Opinion 13
Conversely, when the Lord wished to express his
pleasure, the greatest blessing he could bestow was
to transform wilderness into “a good land, a land
of brooks of water, of fountains and springs.” In the
famous redemption passage in Isaiah, God promises
p r o d ce.
that “The wilderness and the dry land shall be glad . . .
u
streams in the desert.” To “give water in the wilder-
ness” was a way God manifested his care.10 It was a
fitting image for a people so fearful of the desert.
The identification of the arid wasteland with God’s
curse led to the conviction that wilderness was the en-
vironment of evil, a kind of hell. There were several
consequences. Like that of other cultures, the Hebraic
r o d u c e.
o n ot rep
folk imagination made the wilderness the abode
s e o n ly, d
of demons and devils. Among them were the howl-
er s o nal u 0 - 0 - 25
ing dragon or tan, the winged female monster of the
8
night called Lilith, and the familiar man-goat, seirim.
Presiding over all was Azazel, the arch-devil of the wil-
derness. He was the key figure in an expiatory rite in
which a live goat was brought before the chief priest of
a community who symbolically laid upon it the sins
of the group. The animal was then led to the edge of
the cultivated land and “sent away into the wilderness
of Azazel.”11 The ritual has significance not only as the
origin of the conception of a “scapegoat” but as a dem-
onstration of the Hebrews’ opinion of wilderness.
This idea of the immorality of wild country is also
evident in the Old Testament treatment of the paradise
theme. From what little we are told about the Garden
r o du c e.
of Eden it appears to have been, in the tradition of
o no t rep
other paradises, the antipode of wilderness. “Eden” was
the Hebrew word for “delight,” and Genesis represents
it as a pleasant place, indeed. The Garden was well wa-
tered and filled with edible plants. Adam and Eve were
relieved of the necessity of working in order to survive.
Fear also was eliminated, since with one exception the
creatures that shared paradise were peaceable and help-
ful. But the snake encouraged the first couple to eat the
p r o d u ce.
t re
forbidden fruit and as a punishment they were driven
d o n o
u s e o nly,
out of the Garden. The world Adam and Eve now faced
al -25
was a wilderness, a “cursed” land full of “thorns and
2 0 - 0 8
20
thistles.” Later in the Scripture, Eden and wilderness are
juxtaposed in such a way as to leave no doubt about
their original relationship. “The land is like the garden
of Eden before them,” wrote the author of Joel, “but
 ro d u c e.
14 HOW WE GOT HERE
o no t rep
s e o n ly, d
r s on l u wilderness.”
adesolate - 08 - 25Isaiah contains of treacherous
P e
after them a
202 0 And
the promise that God will comfort Zion and “make her
wilderness like Eden, her desert like the garden of the
Lord.” 12 The Story of the Garden and its loss embed-
ded into Western thought the idea that wilderness and
paradise were both physical and spiritual opposites.
do no t re
The history of the Israelite nation added another di-
u s e o nly,
mension to the Judeo-Christian understanding of wil-
al -25
Person -0 8
derness. After the Exodus from bondage in Egypt about
20 2 0
1225 B.C., the Jews under the leadership of Moses wan-
dered in the wilderness of the Sinai Peninsula for an
alleged forty years. The Old Testament account empha-
sizes the hardships encountered in this “howling waste
of the wilderness”; 13 yet the desert experience was im-
mensely important to the tribes of Israel. During these
years the God their fathers had worshipped revealed
himself as Yahweh and promised to be their special pro-
er s o nal u
tector. In the heart of the wilderness on Mount Sinai, P
Moses received the Ten Commandments which created
a covenant between Yahweh and Israel. Thereafter the
Lord demonstrated his protective power by the mirac-
ulous provision of water and food. He also promised
p ro d u ce.
that if the Israelites remained faithful to the covenant,
o no t re
he would allow them to escape the wilderness and enter
d to be tempted by the devil.” 18 This experience, com-
us e o nly,
Canaan, the promised land of milk and honey. 14
al -25
Person 20 2 0 - 08
The Israelites’ experience during the forty-year wan-
dering gave wilderness several meanings. It was under-
stood, in the first place, as a sanctuary from a sinful and
persecuting society. Secondly, wild country came to sig-
nify the environment in which to find and draw close
to God. It also acquired meaning as a testing ground
where a chosen people were purged, humbled, and
o no t rep
o nly, d
made ready for the land of promise. 15 Wilderness never
s e
r s o nal u -0 8-
lost its harsh and forbidding character. Indeed, precisely
e 0
P 202
because of them it was unoccupied and could be a refuge
as well as a disciplinary force. Paradoxically, one sought
the wilderness as a way of being purified and hence
delivered from it into a promised land. There was no
fondness in the Hebraic tradition for wilderness itself.
The Exodus experience established a tradition of
going to the wilderness for freedom and the purifica-
Person
tion of faith. When a society became complacent and
ungodly, religious leaders looked to the wilderness as
a place for rededication and refuge. This is the mean-
ing behind Jeremiah’s plea: “Oh that I had in the
desert a wayfarers’ lodging place, that I might leave
my people . . . for they are all adulterers, a company
men.” When Elijah sought inspiration
and guidance from God, he went into the wilderness a
symbolic forty days and received it, like Moses, on a de-
serted mountain.16 Sometimes an entire group left the
settled parts of Israel for the wilderness with the inten-
p r o d ce.
tion of achieving a degree of purity and simplicity that
u
would in fact prepare the way for the Messiah’s coming.
The most famous of these apocalyptic communities was
that of the Essenes, who lived in caves near the Dead
Sea in the second century before Christ. They hoped
their sojourn, like the one of their ancestors in the Sinai
desert, would lead to another and better promised land.
The importance of wilderness as a sanctuary was
perpetuated in Christianity. John the Baptist was the
r o d u c e.
o n ot rep
New Testament counterpart to Moses, Elijah, and
s e o n ly, d
the Essenes. He sought the wild valley of the Jordan
0 - 0 - 25
River to revitalize faith and make ready for the Mes-
8
202
siah. 17 Each one of the Gospels connected John with
the prophet mentioned in Isaiah whose voice could be
heard crying “in the wilderness” to prepare God’s way.
When Jesus went to John in the Judean Desert for bap-
tism the prophecy was fulfilled. Immediately thereaf-
ter Christ “was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness
plete with forty days of fasting, alluded to the testing of
Israel during the Exodus. And wilderness retained its
significance as the environment of evil and hardship
where spiritual catharsis occurred. Jesus emerged from
the wilderness prepared to speak for God.
In early and medieval Christianity, wilderness kept
r o du c e.
its significance as the earthly realm of the powers of evil
that the Church had to overcome. This was literally the
case in the missionary efforts to the tribes of northern
25 Europe. Christians judged their work to be successful
when they cleared away the wild forests and cut down
the sacred groves where the pagans held their rites. 19 In a
more figurative sense, wilderness represented the Chris-
tian conception of the situation man faced on earth. It
was a compound of his natural inclination to sin, the
p r o d u ce.
t re
temptation of the material world, and the forces of evil
d o n o
u s e o nly,
themselves. In this worldly chaos he wandered lost and
al -25
forlorn, grasping at Christianity in the hope of delivery
2 0 - 0 8
20
to the promised land that now was located in heaven.
Yet Christianity also retained the idea that wild
country could be a place of refuge and religious purity.
A succession of Christian hermits and monks (liter-
ally, one who lives alone) found the solitude of the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Christmas
carols
 This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: Christmas carols

Old English carols for Christmas and other festivals

Contributor: Lucy Etheldred Broadwood

Editor: L. Edna Walter

Illustrator: J. H. Hartley

Release date: December 23, 2023 [eBook #72492]

Language: English

Original publication: New York: The MacMillian Company, 1922

Credits: Robin Monks, Linda Cantoni, and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file
was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHRISTMAS

CAROLS ***
Transcriber’s Note: In the HTML version of this e-book, you can click on the [Listen] link to
hear an mp3 audio file of the carol. Click on the [MusicXML] link to download the notation
in MusicXML format. These music files are the music transcriber’s interpretation of the
printed notation and are placed in the public domain.
CHRISTMAS CAROLS
CONTENTS

IN THE SAME SERIES.

ENGLISH NURSERY
RHYMES.

Selected and Edited by L. EDNA

WALTER. B.Sc.
Harmonized by LUCY E.
BROADWOOD.
Illustrated by DOROTHY M.
WHEELER.
Containing 32 full-page
illustrations in colour, decorative
borders, and about 60
decorative headings and tail-
pieces. Demy 4to (11½ × 8¾
inches).

SONGS FROM
ALICE IN
WONDERLAND
AND
 THROUGH THE
LOOKING-GLASS.
Words by LEWIS CARROLL.
Music by LUCY E. BROADWOOD.
Illustrations by CHARLES
FOLKARD.
Containing 12 full-page
illustrations in colour, decorative
borders, and many small
illustrations. Demy 4to, cloth.

Published by A. & C. BLACK, Ltd., 4, 5, & 6, Soho

Square, London, W.1.
 CHRISTMAS
CAROLS
Old English Carols for
Christmas and other
Festivals.
SELECTED AND EDITED BY
L. EDNA WALTER M.B.E., B.Sc.,
A.C.G.I.

HARMONISED BY
LUCY E. BROADWOOD
ILLUSTRATED BY
J.H. HARTLEY

NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY,

FIFTH AVENUE.
LONDON: A. & C. BLACK, LIMITED, 4, 5, & 6,
SOHO SQUARE.

This book is dedicated to

 ELIZABETH
because she rather liked it.

Published, Autumn, 1922.

 FOREWORD

Special times or events have been celebrated from time immemorial

by feasting, dancing, and singing. Often the dancers formed a ring
and sang as they danced, first the dance and later the song being
called a carol. The carol was not always strictly religious, although in
the old times both the singing and dancing often took place in
cathedrals and churches. Some of the carols that we still know are
connected with times before the Christian era. They have now lost
their dance and the melody has changed, but the ideas are very
ancient. The Holly and the Ivy suggest the old Druids, and we still
put up Holly and Ivy in our houses just as people did before the time
of Christ. We put them up at Christmas, and we sing the carol at
Christmas—but the idea at the back of it is older than Christmas, for
the Church accepted all that was found to be of value in the old
customs, and adapted them to set forth the newer faith. The carrying
in of the Boar’s Head is an old ceremony, too. It was considered a
Royal Dish, and Henry II. ordered it to appear at a special feast
which he gave in honour of his son.
In the old days people thought of the New Year as the time when the
trees and flowers began to come out—that is about May Day—so
the May Day Carols celebrate the New Year’s Day of ever so long
ago. Gradually, however, carols have centred more and more round
events in the life of Christ, and especially round the wonderful story
of His Birth. Many of them have just been handed on from one
person to another through hundreds of years, some have only been
written down at all during the last century. For example, the version
given here of the “Black Decree” was sung into my phonograph by
an old man of seventy-five. All the carols chosen for this book are
those which have been sung through many, many years at times of
festival and mirth (note how often food and drink are referred to), so
don’t expect them to be pious in the modern way or to be at all like
our present-day hymns.
The Publishers desire to acknowledge their indebtedness to Miss
Lucy E. Broadwood for kindly permitting them to reproduce in this
collection the following carols from her ENGLISH TRADITIONAL
SONGS AND CAROLS: “King Pharaoh,” “The Moon Shines Bright,”
“The Sussex Mummers’ Carol,” and “I’ve been Rambling all the
Night.” Also to Miss A.G. Gilchrist for the “Pace Egging Song” and
“The Seven Joys of Mary,” and to the Rev. S. Baring-Gould and his
publishers (Messrs. Methuen & Co., Ltd.) for the “Somersetshire
Wassail” from A GARLAND OF COUNTRY SONG.

CONTENTS
PAGE
GOOD KING WENCESLAS 12
AS JOSEPH WAS A-WALKING 14
CHRISTMAS DAY IN THE MORNING 15
GOD REST YOU MERRY, GENTLEMEN 16
THE HOLY WELL 18
THE FIRST NOWELL 20
THE CHERRY TREE CAROL 23
DIVES AND LAZARUS 24
THE HOLLY AND THE IVY 25
A VIRGIN MOST PURE 26
THE WASSAIL SONG. Part I. 28
THE WASSAIL SONG. Part II. 29
THE BOAR’S HEAD CAROL 30
ALL THAT ARE TO MIRTH INCLINED 33
KING PHARAOH: Part I. The Miracle of the Cock 34
KING PHARAOH: Part II. The Miraculous Harvest 37
THE BLACK DECREE 38
SOMERSETSHIRE WASSAIL 40
A CHILD THIS DAY IS BORN 43
THE MOON SHINES BRIGHT 44
A CAROL FOR TWELFTH DAY 47
THE LORD AT FIRST DID ADAM MAKE 48
THE SEVEN JOYS OF MARY 50
THE SUSSEX MUMMERS’ CAROL 52
AS I SAT ON A SUNNY BANK 53
PACE-EGGING SONG 54
I’VE BEEN RAMBLING ALL THE NIGHT 57
GOOD CHRISTIAN MEN, REJOICE 58
 ILLUSTRATIONS IN COLOUR
BY

J.H. HARTLEY

Page and Monarch forth they went Frontispiece

PAGE

In fields where they lay keeping their sheep 21

Mary said to cherry tree, “Bow down to my
22
knee”
The Boar’s head in hand bear I 31
Let all your songs and praises be unto His
32
Heavenly Majesty
“Say, where did you come from, good man?” 35
“Come, husbandman,” cried Jesus, “cast all your
36
seed away”
O maid, fair maid, in holland smock 41
Glad tidings to all men 42
Awake, Awake, good people all! 45
For I perforce must take my leave of all my
46
dainty cheer
Oh, here come we jolly boys, all of one mind 55
A branch of May, my dear, I say, before your
56
door I stand
Now to the Lord sing praises, all you within this On the
place Cover
Good King Wenceslas