Environmental ethics

Episteme and Phronesis

Episteme = theoretical knowledge (knowing that something is true). Think: scientific laws, principles. Phronesis = practical wisdom (knowing how to act well in particular situations). Think: ethics, judgment, applying values in real life. Why it matters: Environmental ethics needs both — facts about ecology (episteme) and wise application to policy/life choices (phronesis).

Lynn White’s Thesis

• Thesis: The roots of ecological crisis lie in Western Christianity’s anthropocentric worldview (humans above nature, dominion over it).

• Solution: Reinterpret religion/worldview — adopt humility and stewardship (St. Francis as model: respect for all creatures).

Wendell Berry – “Think little”

• Meaning: Focus on small, local, everyday actions (gardening, family, community).

• Impact: Change happens bottom-up, not just through big political/economic systems. Sustainability starts personal.

John Muir – Defense of Hetch Hetchy

• Hetch Hetchy Valley (Yosemite): threatened by damming for water.

• Defense: Muir argued nature has intrinsic, spiritual, aesthetic value. Destroying it for human utility is wrong.

. Moral Status / Considerability (Palmer

• Moral status: Who/what deserves to be morally considered?

• Considerability: To what extent do their interests matter?

• Grounds for it: Sentience (capacity to feel), life, rationality, relationships, etc.

Anthropocentrism / Nonanthropocentrism (Palmer)

• Anthropocentrism = human-centered ethics (nature matters only for human use/value).

• Nonanthropocentrism = nature/animals have intrinsic worth, independent of humans.

Brian Norton’s Ethics Typology

Typology:

• Weak anthropocentrism = human-centered but guided by informed, reflective values.

• Strong anthropocentrism = purely self-interested human focus.

• Nonanthropocentrism = nonhuman nature has direct moral standing.

Utilitarianism (Palmer,

• Core idea: Maximize happiness / minimize suffering (greatest good for greatest number).

• In env. ethics: Protect nature if it leads to best consequences overall (including animal suffering).

Deontology

• Core idea: Morality is about duties, rules, rights — not just outcomes.

• In env. ethics: Some actions (e.g., cruelty to animals, destroying habitats) are wrong even if they maximize utility.

Virtue Theory (Palmer, Hill

• Core idea: Morality = being a virtuous person, cultivating good character traits (respect, humility, care).

• In env. ethics: How would a virtuous person treat nature? Respectfully, with humility.

Value Monism vs. Value Pluralism (Palmer)

• Monism = one ultimate value (e.g., utility, respect for rights).

• Pluralism = multiple values matter (justice, utility, beauty, respect for life).

• Relevance: Environmental issues often require pluralism (balancing competing values).

Absolute, Prima Facie, and Relative Principles

• Absolute = always binding (never break).

• Prima facie = binding unless outweighed by stronger principle.

• Relative = flexible, context-dependent.

• In ethics: Helps sort moral rules (e.g., “don’t kill” might be prima facie).

Common Moral Principles

• Examples: Respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence (do no harm), beneficence (do good), justice, fidelity, veracity.

• Why: Basic shared framework for ethical reasoning.

Hill – Proper Humility & Aesthetic Sensibility

• Argument: Indifference to nature shows a flawed character (arrogance, lack of humility).

• Virtues: Humility, aesthetic appreciation of beauty → necessary for full moral character.

Warren – Oppressive Conceptual Frameworks

• Definition: A system of beliefs that justifies domination/oppression.

• 3 features:

  1. Value-hierarchical thinking (ranking some over others).

  2. Value dualisms (male/female, culture/nature, reason/emotion).

  3. Logic of domination (those ranked higher are justified in dominating lower).

Ecofeminism (Warren)

• s feminist ethics: Opposes systems that oppress women.

• As environmental ethics: Opposes same structures that oppress nature.

• Key link: Sexism and environmental exploitation share roots.

Parfit – Identity Problem & Future Generations

• Identity problem: Future people don’t exist yet, but our actions affect who they will be.

• Concern: Even if who exists changes, we should care about effects on quality of life for future generations.

Baier – Moral Community & Intergenerational Obligations

• Moral community: Includes not just present humans but future ones.

• Intergenerational obligation: Duties to ensure resources, livable environment for those who come after us.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative & Animals

• Categorical imperative: Act only on principles you’d will as universal laws; treat people as ends, not means.

• Animals: Not rational, so no direct duties to them.

• But: Cruelty to animals is wrong because it erodes our duties toward humans (indirect duty).

Wilson’s Explanation of Kant

• Why animals aren’t things: They are living, sentient beings — not mere objects.

• But no rights: Because rights for Kant depend on rationality/autonomy, which animals lack.

Singer – Speciesism

• Speciesism = unjust bias favoring one’s own species (like racism/sexism).

• Basis for equality: Sentience (capacity to suffer/experience pleasure).

• Thus: Animals deserve equal moral consideration.

Regan – Rights View vs. Utilitarianism

• Rejects utilitarianism: Can sacrifice individuals for greater good.

• Rights view: Animals have inherent value as “subjects-of-a-life.”

• Therefore: They deserve rights, not just consideration of utility.

Warren – Weak vs. Strong Animal Rights

• Strong rights: Animals have same rights as humans.

• No rights: Animals have no moral rights.

• Weak rights: Middle ground → animals deserve some rights (e.g., not to suffer unnecessarily), but not equal to humans.

Justice and Care Views (Clement

• Justice view: Morality about fairness, rights, universal principles.

• Care view: Morality about relationships, empathy, responsibility.

• In env. ethics: Care stresses connectedness with nature, not just abstract fairness.

Clement – Companion & Farm Animals

• Responsibility: Because we domesticated them, we owe them special care (companions).

• Application to farm animals: Same logic applies — we created dependence, so we owe humane treatment.