Environmental Ethics ch 6 exam II

Shallow ecology

• human centered

• concerned w/ ecological problems solely bc of their impact on humans

Deep ecology

• life centered, rather than anthropocentric

• all living things have inherent value

• humans are parts of nature, not above it

• “shallow” approaches to the environment are not sufficient

  • deep social and economic changes needed to heal nature

Shallow ecology

• human centered

• concerned w/ ecological problems solely bc of their impact on humans

Deep ecology

• life centered, rather than anthropocentric

• all living things have inherent value

• humans are parts of nature, not above it

• “shallow” approaches to the environment are not sufficient

  • deep social and economic changes needed to heal nature

common credo deep ecologist accept, “deep ecology platform”, or “the 8 pts”, Arne naess and George sessions formulated (1984 version)

1. well being and flourishing f human and nonhuman life on earth have value in themselves indep of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human needs

2. richness and diversity of life contribute to the realization of these values, are values in themselves

3. humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity expect to satisfy vital needs

4. flourishing of human life is compatible with a smaller human population, flourishing of nonhuman life requires a smaller human population

5. present human interference w/ the nonhuman world is excessive and the situation is worsening

6. therefore, policies must be changed, resulting state of affairs will be very different

7. ideological change will be mainly that of appreciating life quality rather than adhering to increasingly higher standard of living, incr awareness of big vs great

8. those who subscribe to these points are obligated to implement the necessary changes

critiques of deep ecology

• calling for smaller population is a bit controversial

• more than just vital human needs can justify interference with nature

Arne Naess

Helpe formulate the deep ecology platform, had other personal view as well (not expressed in the platform)

• believed in oneness of reality

• embraced biocentric egalitarianism

  • belief that all living things have equal inherent value

• doctrine of self-realization

• pushed for small, classless democratic green communities

ecofeminist 3 fold claim

1. there exist connections btw the domination of women and of nature

2. understanding these connections is crucial to both feminism and an adequate environmental ethic

3. both forms of domination must be opposed and ended

Karen J Warren

• leading contemporary ecofeminist

sexism and naturism linked historically how?

both have similar causes, under patriarchy…

• nature has been feminized (“Mother Earth”)

• women have been naturized (derogatory epithets as “foxes”, or “chicks”)

such equations have contributed to the domination of both nature and women (coupled w/ assumption of male superiority)

hierarchically organized value dualisms (conceptual linkage of warren #1)

• pairs of contrasted concepts in which one disjunct is values more than the other

  • common value dualism ex:

    • mind/body

    • human/nature

    • man/woman

  • women historically been associated w/ inferior qualities, such dualisms often rationalize sexism

  • humans historically viewed superior to nature, such dualisms rationalize naturism

logic of domination (conceptual linkage of warren #2)

• false assumption that superiors have a right to dominate inferiors

  • bc feminism opposes sexism, and sexism and naturism rest of logic of domination, feminists should oppose naturism

Warren’s argument for how value dualisms and logic of domination played crucial roles in arguments for patriarchy

1. women identified w/ nature and the realm of physical, men with “human” and realm of mental

2. whatever is identified w/ nature and the realm of physical is inferior to that of “human” and realm of mental

3. thus women are inferior to men, men superior to women

4. and if x is superior to y, x is justified in subduing y

   1. thus men justified in subordinating women

criticisms of warren

• “all feminists must deny logic of domination”, some might accept it but avoid patriarchy by denying women are inferior

• ppl don’t accept the logic of domination in the way warren claims (i.e., no one would claim that of 2 4th graders, the one better at math can subordinate the other)

• exaggerates connection between naturism and sexism

warren’s attempt to show that feminists must oppose both naturism and sexism and its criticisms

• feminism is movement to end sexism

• sexism rests of logic of domination, as well as naturism (conceptually linked)

• thus feminism is movement to end naturism as well

crit

• superiority sometimes justifies hierarchy

• are there morally relevant differences btw subordination of women and nature?