secular ideas about ecology

shallow ecology

• instrumental + anthropocentric

• conservation/ protection should happen bc its in our interest to do so

• environmental issues stand to cost us money/ health/ safety/ wellbeing etc

• goes back to aristotle’s heirarchy of soul’s theory- human souls capable of rational thought and thus more important.

deep ecology

• anti-anthropocentrism

• world has intrinsic rather than instrumental value

• Naess – eco/bi-centric perspective – taking the perspective of all living things as having equal value.

• Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis

• not necessarily secular BUT inspo from buddhist conceptions of the world

speciesism

• irrational privileging of one species, humankind, above all others

• singer blames it on judaeo-christian tradition, which unjustifiably raises concerns of humanity above all else

arne naess on deep ecology

• we are part of nature and not seperate from it- one element in a larger biosphere

• all life forms have intrinsic value (incl innanimate objects)

• think like a mountain- we are part of the biosphere, realising our responsibility to other living things + thinking abt long term interests of the environment

• came up with idea of ecosophy which is a ‘philosophy of ecological harmony and equilibrium’

singer’s criticism of deep ecology

• Ethical concern should be extended to sentient beings-those capable of experiencing pleasure and suffering-not necessarily all forms of life, as Deep Ecology suggests.

• But stalactites, mountains and plant life cannot be thought of in this way.

• They lack personhood and a nervous system.

• Deep Ecology movement is wrong to claim that we must ‘think like a mountain’

• Næss’s focus on ecosystems as wholes detracts from the moral consideration of individual animals who can experience suffering, creating tension between ecocentrism and Singer’s utilitarianism.

evaluation of singer’s criticism

• J. Baird Callicott emphasises a holistic argument

• supports the ecocentric perspective of Deep Ecology, arguing that the moral value of wholes, such as ecosystems, can override individual concerns.

• Moral Holism: In an ecological context, the well-being of the whole system (ecosystem integrity) is often more ethically significant than the well-being of any individual member.

• Practical Ethical Dilemmas: Callicott points out that focusing solely on sentient beings can lead to morally counterproductive actions. For example:

  • Preventing predation to minimize animal suffering would disrupt ecological dynamics.

  • Opposing habitat conservation because it might harm individual animals undermines broader environmental goals.

strength of naess

• evidence from social psychology experiments that our moral behaviour is shaped by our immediate environment

• e.g zimbardo’s stanford prison experiment

• might therefore be reasonable to assume that in a degraded future environment our moral behaviour will become far worse

• This is an anthropocentric view to do with human morality but is does provide an incentive for us to value the environment in a manner suggested by Naess to avoid this outcome.

peter singer on utilitarianism

• argues that all sentient beings have an interest in avoiding pain

• humans don’t respect this interest + have no ethical justification for not doing so

• Singer argues it is peculiarly only animals whose interests we are content to ignore

• we ignore them on the basis of their species (speciesism)

aldo leopold

• in work Sand County Almanac he argued for a ‘land ethic’

• (land = soils, water, plants + animals which he considered to have moral value)

• argues that this biotic community needs to be maintained in its natural state

• humans should see themselves as “plain members and citizens” of the biotic community, not its conquerors

• emphasised interdependence of all parts of an ecosystem, asserting that human well-being is intrinsically tied to the health of the land

• rejects anthropocentrism

evaluation of leopold’s land ethic: katz on vagueness

• leopold’s ethical principle that actions are right if they preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community

• katz argues that notions of integrity and stability lack clear definitions, which makes them difficult to apply in specific ethical sitchs

• supported by Bryan Norton, who suggests that Leopold’s framework lacks the specificity needed for guiding environmental decision-making

evaluation of leopold’s land ethic: katz on holism

Katz critiques Leopold’s holistic approach for prioritizing the welfare of ecosystems over the rights and intrinsic value of individual organisms:

• Ethical Concerns: Katz argues that Leopold's emphasis on the "biotic community" risks justifying harmful actions against individual beings if those actions serve the perceived good of the whole system.

• Subordination of Individuals: This critique aligns with those of Tom Regan and Peter Singer, who argue that Leopold’s framework downplays the moral status of individual sentient beings in favor of ecological collectives.