8.2 Environmental Ethics

Biocentrism

Peter Singer advocates for equal consideration of interests using a utilitarian approach. He posits that ethical actions maximize overall happiness and well-being for all affected beings.
He argues for veganism/vegetarianism to avoid exploiting animals, thereby promoting the greater good for both humans and animals. This stance is rooted in the belief that animals have inherent worth and deserve moral consideration.
Singer focuses on sentient beings, defining them as animals capable of experiencing suffering, pain, and pleasure. His criterion for moral consideration is the capacity to suffer.
Speciesism prioritizes animals most like us, creating a hierarchy, while insects and plants are excluded. Singer critiques speciesism as a form of discrimination akin to racism or sexism.
The definition of sentience raises questions about anthropocentrism and how we attribute consciousness to animals. Anthropocentrism is the tendency to view the world solely from a human perspective, potentially leading to biased assessments of non-human entities.
Research indicates that even animals like mice can sing, challenging our understanding of sentience and our treatment of these animals. Such findings call into question the validity of using fixed criteria to determine moral status.
Ethical questions arise regarding the extent to which we anthropomorphize animals and whether we attribute enough emotions, thoughts, and feelings to them. Anthropomorphism, the attribution of human traits to non-human entities, poses a challenge in accurately assessing animal welfare and moral consideration.
Moral nihilism suggests there is no right or wrong, which can lead to dangerous justifications for acts like infanticide, incest, and murder, observed in the natural world. Moral nihilism undermines ethical frameworks, potentially leading to moral relativism and the justification of harmful actions.
Survival of the fittest arguments can be used to justify harmful ideologies, such as eugenics or neglecting the vulnerable in society. Social Darwinism, the application of "survival of the fittest" to social and political issues, has been used to rationalize inequality and discrimination.
Ethical dilemmas arise in conservation, questioning when and how to intervene in nature, such as saving a baby lion from a crocodile. These dilemmas highlight the complexities of balancing human intervention with natural processes.
Singer later adopted a "flexible vegan" stance, arguing that eating oysters is acceptable due to their presumed lack of suffering and the sustainability of oyster farming. This position reflects the evolving nature of ethical considerations and the incorporation of new information.
Ethical decisions on meat consumption vary individually, with some avoiding specific types of meat (e.g., lamb) or preferring meat from animals that lived full lives and died naturally. Personal ethical frameworks play a significant role in guiding dietary choices and consumption patterns.
Identifying injustices, such as factory farming and animal experimentation, is often easier than defining and achieving justice. Addressing systemic injustices requires comprehensive understanding, policy changes, and individual actions.

Ecocentrism

Ecocentrism, particularly in Western thought, emphasizes the ethical treatment of land, shifting the focus from individual organisms to entire ecosystems.
Aldo Leopold advocated for a land ethic, urging that we see land as a community to which we belong, rather than a commodity to be abused. Leopold's land ethic promotes a holistic view of the environment, emphasizing interconnectedness and moral responsibility.
This perspective resonates with farming and rural communities, promoting love and respect for the land. Farmers and rural communities often have a deep connection to the land, fostering sustainable practices and environmental stewardship.
However, it may not fully encompass indigenous understandings of ecocentrism. Indigenous perspectives on ecocentrism often involve spiritual and cultural dimensions that differ from Western philosophical approaches.

Ecofeminism

Ecofeminism critiques the paternalistic control of the earth by patriarchal structures, which shape our ethics and actions. It highlights the interconnectedness between the domination of women and the exploitation of nature.
It addresses the dominance of toxic masculine thinking, arguing that women, animals, and the earth are seen as less than in a male-dominated culture. Toxic masculinity refers to harmful societal expectations of men that can lead to destructive behaviors and environmental degradation.
Sheila Collins links the colonization of women, people of color, animals, and nature to sexism, racism, class exploitation, and ecological destruction. Collins emphasizes the intersectionality of oppression, where various forms of domination reinforce each other.
Ecofeminism seeks to balance the system with feminine characteristics such as cooperation, collaboration, nurturing, and sympathy. It challenges traditional power dynamics by promoting values associated with care and interconnectedness.
It promotes environmentalism in conjunction with social and cultural justice. Ecofeminism views environmental issues as inherently linked to social justice, advocating for holistic solutions that address both.
The disconnect with nature is seen as similar to a disconnect with women, where admiration from afar objectifies and controls. Objectification reduces both women and nature to mere resources, undermining their intrinsic value and agency.
Normalized language in farming, such as "virgin land" or "raping the land", reflects an imbalance between masculine and feminine principles. Such language reinforces patriarchal attitudes and contributes to the exploitation of natural resources.

Radical Environmentalism

Radical environmentalism advocates for immediate and combative action to address environmental issues, often employing direct action and civil disobedience.
It questions the pace of change, arguing for radical system change through demonstrations and acts of rebellion. Radical environmentalists believe that incremental changes are insufficient to address the severity of environmental problems.
Some radical environmentalists propose burning down the existing system to rebuild it, accepting potential suffering for the greater good. This perspective reflects a willingness to challenge the status quo, even at significant personal and societal costs.
Lierre Keith critiques agriculture as the root cause of slavery, imperialism, and environmental destruction, advocating for a shift in food systems. Keith argues that agriculture has led to social and environmental injustices, advocating for alternative food production methods.

Eco-sophie

Eco-sophie emerged in the 1980s with Green parties in Europe, theorized by Naess, who also developed the concept of deep ecology. Eco-sophie integrates ecological principles with philosophical inquiry, emphasizing the interconnectedness of all life.
Divisions arose between realists, who sought reform through business and government collaboration, and fundies, who advocated for radical change and overthrow of capitalism. These divisions reflect differing approaches to environmental activism, ranging from pragmatic cooperation to revolutionary change.
Naess distinguished between shallow ecology, focused on trade-offs, and deep ecology, which delves into radical aspects. Shallow ecology seeks to manage environmental problems without addressing underlying systemic issues, while deep ecology aims to transform societal values and structures.
Deep ecology involved human self-realization and growing the ecological self, emphasizing that nature exists within us. The ecological self recognizes the interconnectedness between individual identity and the natural world, fostering a sense of responsibility and care.
Eco-sophie aligns with radical environmentalism, arguing that the environment should not be viewed in isolation. Eco-sophie emphasizes the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and ethical issues, advocating for holistic solutions.

Spectrum of Greenness

A spectrum of greenness exists, ranging from deep ecology (dark green) focused on the natural wild to light green, which seeks balance in practices like farming. This spectrum represents different approaches to environmentalism, each with its own set of values and priorities.
Bright green promotes Promethean thinking, advocating for technology to lessen our footprint, but neglecting hidden costs. Promethean thinking emphasizes technological solutions to environmental problems, sometimes overlooking potential unintended consequences.
Indigenous environmental ethics emphasizes relational ethics, considering the land as kin and the source of all meaning. Relational ethics focuses on the interconnectedness of all beings and the moral obligations that arise from these relationships.
Indigenous law is based on country, which is seen as constant, with time being secondary. Indigenous legal systems often prioritize the well-being of the land and its inhabitants over short-term economic gains.
New animists advocate for the re-enchantment of nature, developing relationships through ritual and ceremony. Animism recognizes the inherent spiritual value of nature and seeks to restore a sense of reverence and connection.
They argue that when nature is disenchanted, it loses respect, reverence, and love, becoming a mere machine for human purposes. Disenchantment leads to the objectification and exploitation of nature, undermining its intrinsic value.
A shift is occurring in thought, moving from Newtonian mechanics to Eltonian ecology, although actions may not always align with stated ethics. Newtonian mechanics views the world as a predictable, mechanistic system, while Eltonian ecology emphasizes complexity and interdependence.
Governments and businesses are co-opting terminology and redefining it, leading to greenwashing. Greenwashing involves falsely promoting environmentally friendly practices to deceive consumers and the public.

Ecological Self

We cannot separate ourselves from nature, or we recreate a wasteland within ourselves. The ecological self recognizes the interconnectedness between individual identity and the natural world, fostering a sense of responsibility and care.
Sustainability is linked to health, healing, wholeness, holism, and holiness. These concepts emphasize the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and spiritual well-being.
Environmental destruction leads to internalised normalisation, disconnecting us from nature. Internalised normalisation is the process by which harmful environmental practices become accepted and unquestioned in society.
Indigenous people attempt to deprogram us from this colonial mindset. Indigenous knowledge and practices offer valuable insights into sustainable living and environmental stewardship.

Conclusion

There is no single right way to think about ethics; it involves continual critique. Ethical thinking requires ongoing reflection, evaluation, and adaptation to new information and perspectives.
A tension exists between moral ethics and applied ethics, with utopian ideals versus practical realities. Moral ethics provides a framework for ideal conduct, while applied ethics addresses real-world dilemmas and trade-offs.
Environmental ethics involves relationships between nature and society and can play a bigger role in environmental management and policy-making. Environmental ethics offers guidance for addressing complex environmental challenges through informed decision-making.
Fundamental questions include defining nature and naturalness, and whether humans are part of nature. These questions shape our understanding of environmental responsibility and our relationship with the natural world.
Defining humans as part of nature could justify capitalism and destruction, while separating humans from nature could create an obligation to care for it. Our understanding of the human-nature relationship influences our ethical obligations and environmental policies.

Wicked problems

Environmental issues are ethical dilemmas at their core, involving trade-offs that may not align with one's ethics. Wicked problems are complex, interconnected challenges that defy simple solutions and involve conflicting values.
Sustainability models often involve trade-offs, such as environment for development. These trade-offs highlight the challenges of balancing economic growth with environmental protection.
Uncertainty, unpredictability, and ambiguity make it difficult to determine the consequences of ethical choices. Complex systems and incomplete information make it difficult to predict the long-term impacts of environmental decisions.
James Lovelock's Gaia theory suggests that the Earth has power and could eliminate humans if provoked. Gaia theory posits that the Earth is a self-regulating system that can respond to human actions in ways that are detrimental to human well-being.
Ecology and science have opened up ways of thinking about the environment as non-static and unpredictable. Ecological science emphasizes the dynamic and interconnected nature of ecosystems, challenging traditional linear models.
Brian Norton argues that anthropocentrists and biocentrists share common ground in wanting clean water and healthy soil. Despite differing ethical frameworks, anthropocentrists and biocentrists share common goals related to environmental health and sustainability.
Sarkar identifies myths in human concern for the environment, such as the myth of a future we should have had, an untouched wilderness, and a golden age. These myths can distort our understanding of environmental issues and hinder effective action.
Minteer argues for overhauling environmental ethics, focusing on acting now rather than emphasizing thinking. Minteer calls for a shift from theoretical debates to practical action in addressing environmental challenges.
Biodiversity is defined differently by various agencies; determining an acceptable level is challenging, with debates over invasive or non-native species. The definition and management of biodiversity raise complex ethical and scientific questions.
Environmental pragmatism involves making trade-offs and choosing life and death, raising questions about intervention. Pragmatism emphasizes practical solutions and decision-making in the face of uncertainty and conflicting values.
It is important to consider what to stop doing, as well as what to do, and to understand the trade-offs involved. Reducing harmful practices is as important as promoting beneficial actions in achieving environmental sustainability.
The precautionary principle is difficult to apply when science is theoretical. The precautionary principle calls for action to prevent potential harm, even in the absence of complete scientific certainty.
Ecocide, the killing of species, is not viewed as seriously as genocide. The lack of legal and ethical frameworks to address ecocide reflects an undervaluing of environmental destruction.
Biocontrols and assisted colonisation can have unintended consequences, such as cane toads. Unforeseen consequences highlight the complexities of intervening in natural systems.
Deontological questions arise around when and how to kill, including debates on ethical ways to kill. Deontology emphasizes moral duties and principles, raising ethical questions about the permissibility of killing in various contexts.
Ethical questions in conservation also include how much to encroach on animal rights, such as giving elephants contraception. Balancing conservation goals with animal welfare raises complex ethical dilemmas.

Case Studies

Black Footed Ferret: The population of prairie dogs was eliminated which affected the population of black-footed ferrets. It resulted in diseases, stress, and death. The ferrets had become disrupted and did not now how to hunt prairie dogs. A new set of predators had entered the ecosystem so not many ferrets survived.
When removed from their territory, some animals do not pass on their instincts to the offspring, an example would be baby birds.
Yellowstone Wolves: Yellowstone wolves were removed and then reintroduced.
Killing Owls To Save Owls: A specialist (spotted owl) that required old growth forest habitat was being affected by human logging practices. Another species, (barred owl) was more aggressive and could take more habitat from the spotted owl. Hunters were hired to shoot the barred owls. Does the end justify the means?
The planetary manager must sometimes make a tradeoff between bad or worse decisions. The conservation efforts are based on exploitation.
It is normalize d to kill foxes in ruler Australia.

There has been a rise in animal sanctuaries and compassionate conservationists and it is seen as inhumane to eradicate pests even if they proliferate due to lack of natural predators.

Environmental ethics versus animal ethics

Animal ethics come down to the individual. Moral consideration is given to individual animals, focusing on their well-being and rights.
The health of the ecosystem is determined by getting ride of species. Management strategies often prioritize the overall health of the ecosystem, which may involve the removal of certain species.
The killing of pests will benefit the bird/insect population and ensure the continuity of the habitat. Pest management aims to protect biodiversity and maintain ecosystem stability.
Sometimes there is an incompatibility between animal and environmental ethics. Balancing the well-being of individual animals with the health of the ecosystem can create ethical dilemmas.