ENVISOC Lecture Notes Module 1

8/21/2019 ENVISOC Lecture Notes Module 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/envisoc-lecture-notes-module-1 1/17

ENVISOC

Module 1

KEY CONCEPT POINTS FOR UNDERSTANDING 1:

Philosophy, Science, the Environment and Natural Resources

• The Myth of the “Technological Fix

o Not all pro!lems can !e solved !y technology alone

o Science is not a neutral !ody of "no#ledge

$t has its o#n !iases%in favor of a particular method to the

exclusion of others $t is an exclusionary !ody of "no#ledge%there are rules involved

for the production of scientific "no#ledgeo Most environmental pro!lems are also results of science and technology

• The Role of Philosophy in the Environment

o Environmental pro!lems are outcomes of human&ha!itat interactionso 'uman&ha!itat interactions are influenced !y #orldvie#s or cosmologies,

that is, ho# human !eings see their natural environmento Such cosmology is !ased on a set of Ethical and Moral Norms

Ethical Norm%standard of #hat is “right !ased on an externally

defined norm of #hat should !e or #hat is accepta!le as correct Moral Norm%standard of #hat is “good !ased on a norm that is

derived from standards inherent in the ideal human nature (“Manas inherently )ood*

o +ecision&ma"ing process, as a social and political process, is a reflection

of these norms Perceptions of #hat is “right and “good vis&&vis the environment

influence political choices and decisions This, in turn, is reflected in the modes of environmental

governance

Ethical Theory and the Environment

• Ethics%a !ranch of Philosophy that see"s a reasoned examination of #hat

customs tells us a!out ho# #e ought to live

• -oncern of Ethical .nalysis/ #hat is #hat ought to !e

• +escriptive Ethics%. statement of #hat is customary as a !asis for ethical

!ehavior

•

+ifference !et#een “ordinary experience and the first level of philosophicala!straction is the difference !et#een #hat is done (or valued or !elieved* and#hat ought to !e done (or valued or !elieved*

• Normative Ethics%The rendering of ethical 0udgments, giving advice, and

offering of evaluations of #hat ought or should !eo Normative 0udgments prescri!e !ehavior

1 These concept points are based on the generally accepted body of literature on the subject, and unless

specified, are not the original ideas of the faculty lecturers and tutors

1



Pesticide used should !e reduced

1ogging should !e !anned

• Philosophical Ethics%The analysis and evaluation of normative 0udgments and

their supporting reasonso $ncludes general concepts, principles, and theories to #hich #e appeal in

defending and explaining normative claims

• Environmental Ethics%. !ranch of Philosophy involving the systematic study

and evaluation of normative 0udgments a!out human&environment interactions

• Ethical Theory%.n element of Philosophical Ethics2 an attempt to provide

systematic ans#ers to philosophical 3uestions raised !y descriptive andnormative approaches to ethics

o $ndividual moral 3uestions

4hat should $ do5

4hat "ind of person should $ !e5

4hat do $ value5

'o# should $ live5

o 6uestions for pu!lic policy or social philosophy

4hat type of society is !est5 4hat policies should #e follo# as a group5

4hat social arrangements and practices #ill !est protect and

promote individual #ell&!eing5 4hat should !e done #hen individuals disagree5

• Relevance of Ethical Theory

o Ethical theory provides a common language for discussing and

understanding ethical issueso Ethical theory ena!les us to !ecome more a#are of the patterns and

assumptions in our #ays of thin"ingo Ethical theory offers guidance and evaluation in specific situations and

uses these to generate recommendationso Ethical theory ena!les us to !e self&critical of the negative impacts of

theories to ourselves

-lassical Ethical Theories Related to the Environment

Natural Law or Teleological Tradition

• -an !e traced to .ristotle and Thomas .3uinas

• .ristotelian Ethics

o To fully understand something, one has to understand the causes for

!eing the #ay it iso Four “causes of an o!0ect7s existence

Material%4hat an o!0ect is made from, i8e8 its matter

Formal%'o# the matter is organi9ed and structured so that this

material is #hat it is rather than something else that is made fromthe same material

Efficient%'o# something comes to !e #hat it is, i8e8 the process,

event or o!0ect:person responsi!le for the existence of the o!0ect Final%The purpose or characteristic activity of the o!0ect

2



o .ristotle !elieves that all things have a natural and distinctive activity2 the

goal of this activity, i8e8 its purpose or function, is called as its teloso .ristotle distinguishes t#o !asic types of natural o!0ects/ living and non&

living 1iving o!0ects possess a “psyche or a “soul

Three types of “souls

• Nutritive or appetitive%capacity to nutrition, gro#th and

reproduction

• Sensitive%capacity to feel, desire and move

• Thin"ing%capacity to thin"

Plants possess only the nutritive soul2 animals possess !oth the

nutritive and sensitive souls2 only humans possess the three soulso ;asic .rgument of .ristotelian Ethics%Things are good #hen they fulfill

their natural activity or function, i8e8 #hen they actuali9e their potential

• Thomistic Ethics

o Thomas .3uinas interprets the scientific and ethical teleology of .ristotle

as evidence that a divine plan operates in natureo Natural order, !eing )od7s #or", is also a moral order

'ierarchy of humans over nature and other o!0ects is a natural

order, hence, also a moral order 'o#ever, humans should not destroy nature since this violates the

natural la#s, and hence the moral order of thingso ;asic .rgument of Thomistic Ethics%Fulfilling our natural potential, a

potential implicitly in harmony #ith the rest of nature, is the highest formof ethical activity for an individual

• Pro!lems of Teleological Ethics

o Not all natural o!0ects have some definite and distinctive telos that can !e

fixedo

Evolutionary theory ena!les the changing of natural o!0ects, hence theina!ility to have fixed “causes or teloso Not all things are good 0ust !ecause they are natural%example, pain and

suffering caused !y death, disease, natural disasters

The Utilitarian Tradition

• ;ased on the #ritings of <eremy ;entham and <ohn Stuart Mill

• The goodness of an act is !ased on its conse3uences

o $f the act tends to maximi9e good conse3uences, it is an ethically right

act2 if it does not, the act is ethically #rongo )ood conse3uence%maximi9e the overall good2 produce the greatest

good for the greatest num!er o T#o elements

.n account of the good

. rule for 0udging all acts and decisions in terms of that good

• T#o types of values

o $ntrinsic value%the good inherently held (pleasure, happiness*

o $nstrumental value%the goodness of something !ecause of its relation to

the “good, of ho# it contri!utes to the optimal attainment of that “good

3



• T#o versions of =tilitarianism

o 'edonistic%Pleasure, or the a!sence of pain, is the only good valued for

its o#n sa"eo Preference%. #orld in #hich as many people have as much of #hat they

desire as possi!le #ould !e the ethically !est #orld

• Pro!lems of =tilitarianism

o Measurement pro!lems

The good is ta"en to !e that #hich has intrinsic value2 !ut intrinsic

value is not easily counted, measured or compared .ttempts to 3uantify or put value on things tend to distort, or fail to

capture, the #hole reality $mpossi!ility of including all people2 this results to limiting the

analysis of conse3uences only to those immediately affected%creates pro!lems #hen the act !eing evaluated have far&reachingimpacts across space and time

o Fundamental pro!lems

=tilitarianism 0udges acts not on the !asis of its principles, !ut on

the !asis of its conse3uences Thus, it fails to provide a complete analysis of “good acts that

produce !ad conse3uences, or “#rong acts that produce correctresults8

Deontology or Kantian Ethics

• ;ased on the #or" of $mmanuel >ant

• Emphasi9es the notion of acting on principle rather than conse3uences2 and that

the central concepts of ethics involve duties and rights (“deontology is the )ree"#ord for “duty*

• Premises of >antian Ethics

o 4e can !e held responsi!le only for those things #e can control

o These principles are expressions of the intention of our action

o 4e are ethical !eings !ecause #e are rational !eings #ho can freely form

intentions and deli!erately choose to act upon themo 4e are acting ethically #henever the principle or maxim upon #hich #e

act is a rational one . rational principle is one that is categorical and universal

-ategorical imperative

• To act only in those #ays that all rational !eings #ould find

accepta!le

• To treat people as “ends and not simply as “means, or as

“su!0ects and not simply as “o!0ects%thus, #e areethically o!liged to treat people as rational andautonomous !eings

o $mplications on duties and rights

>antian ethics places primary value on duty to treat other people

#ith respect and on the rights of e3uality and freedom These !asic rights and duties all follo# from our nature as !eing

capa!le of free and rational action

4



• Pro!lems of >antian Ethics

o Some critics claim that >antian ethics offers no !asis for ma"ing

su!stantive value 0udgments a!out acts The goodness of acts are !ased on ho# people are treated, and

not on the content of the choice madeo ?ver&emphasis on rights could lead to an emphasis on “#ants%this

results to an explosion of rights, #ith society !ecoming a collection ofnumerous interest groups, each claiming rights against the greater pu!licinterest and over&all social good

o .nthropocentic, or human&centered, !ias%there is little !asis for ethical

o!ligations to things that are not li"e human !eings, that is, not free orrational8

Ethical Relativism

• Ethical relativism%. vie# that denies the possi!ility for ma"ing o!0ective ethical

0udgments

•

Main propositionso Ethical standards depend upon, or are relative to, an individual7s feelings,

culture, religiono Ethics is merely and exclusively a matter of #hat is customary

o “$t is all a matter of opinion, and therefore time is #asted on finding the

“correct or “true ans#ers to controversies

• Reasons for re0ecting “Ethical relativism

o 4e should not confuse the fact that people disagree a!out ethical issues

#ith the philosophical claim that o!0ective agreement is impossi!le $t is a mista"e to conclude that there is no right ans#er simply

!ecause t#o cultures hold different !eliefso Ethical reasoning does not #or" for a!solute standards, !ut only to

provide guides for reasoned decisionso Ethical relativism could lead to de!ilitating passivity, resignation, and

apathy a!out social, moral, legal, economic and political issues

Environmental Ethics and Resource =se/ The 4estern Perspectives

Anthropocentric Ethics

• .nthropocentrism%. #orldvie# that loo"s at humans as the center and the

primary entity from #hose point of vie# the natural #orld is analy9ed

• <udeo&-hristian Ethics

o

;asic Foundation/ )enesiso 'umans are created in the image of )od%hence #e have moral and

metaphysical uni3uenesso 'umans are naturally good

o 'umans are superior to nature2 #e are separate from, and transcend,

natureo 'umans have !een commanded !y )od to su!due and dominate nature

5



• The -oncept of Moral Standing

o 4estern philosophical tradition denies the existence of any direct moral

relationships !et#een humans and the natural environmento Most ethical theories argue that/

?nly humans have moral standing

.ll other things have ethical value only in so far as they serve

human interests

• Ethical Theory and Moral Standing

o Natural 1a# or .ristotelian&Thomistic Ethics (.ristotle and .3uinas*

?nly human !eings are moral agents !ecause they possess an

intellect (or “soul* capa!le of thin"ing and choosingo >antian Ethics ($mmanuel >ant*

1imits “rights and “moral standing to “su!0ects and “ends2 and

not to “o!0ects and “means ?nly autonomous !eings, such as humans, capa!le of free and

rational action, are moral !eingso -artesian Ethics (Rene +escartes*

The criterion for moral standing is consciousness .nything not conscious is a mere physical thing and can !e

treated #ithout concern for its #ell&!eingo =tilitarian Ethics (<eremy ;entham*

“The 3uestion is not, -an they reason5 Nor can they talk 5 ;ut

can they suffer 5 Moral considera!ility should extend to all things that have the

capacity to feel pleasure and pain (i8e, are sentient*8

• Environmental $mplications of +ominant Ethical Theories

o Much of 4estern philosophical tradition is unsympathetic to the idea of a

direct responsi!ility to the natural #orldo

This tradition provides a rationale for the exploitation and dominance ofthe natural #orld%led to the present environmental crises

• Early @arieties of Environmental Ethics

o <ohn Passmore (Man’s esponsi!ility for Nature, ABCD*

Materialistic greed of consumerist societies are lamenta!le2 #e

should adopt a more “sensuous attitude to#ard the #orld There must !e a “ne# ethic in relating #ith the environment, in

#hich aesthetic value plays an important role The natural #orld has no value in its o#n right2 it is valua!le

!ecause humans care for it, love it, and find it !eautiful 'umans have responsi!ilities regarding the natural environment,

!ut the !asis of these responsi!ilities lies in human interestso 4illiam ;lac"stone

There is a difference !et#een those things that #e merely “desire

#ith those things that #e have “rights There are universal and inaliena!le human rights, !ut these rights

entail a “correlative duty or o!ligation on the part of other peopleto either act or refrain from acting in certain #ays

There are moral duties that limit li!erties and the exercise of

certain other rights

6



.rgues that !asic human rights that follo# from the nature of

human !eings as free and rational !eings%such as e3uality,li!erty, happiness, life and property%could not !e reali9ed #ithouta safe, healthy and liva!le environment

'uman !eings have a right to a liva!le environment

• Recent +e!ates on Moral Standing

o .nthropocentric Extensionism

The practice of extending moral standing to include future

generation of humans or to develop ne# human rights +uties are in terms of duties “regarding the environment, and not

duties “to the environmento Nonanthropocentric Extensions of ethics

.ttempts to extend ethics and give moral standing to things other

than human !eings%animals, plants and other natural o!0ects <oel Fein!erg7s arguments

• $n order to meaningfully say that #e have an o!ligation “to

some o!0ect, rather than merely an o!ligation “regarding

that o!0ect, the o!0ect must have some #elfare or good ofits o#n

• To say that something has a “good and a “!ad is to say

that it has interests

• ?nly things #ith “conative life, or #ith “conscious #ishes,

desires, hopes2 or urges or impulses2 or unconsciousdrives, aims, or goals2 or latent tendencies, direction ofgro#th and natural fulfillments, can !e said to haveinterests

o Some animals, such as higher animals, can !e said

to have rightso Plants do not have rights

o Species do not have rights, only individual animals

of the species%duties can only !e to individual!eings that possess the appropriate “cognitivee3uipment8

-hristopher Stone7s arguments

• .rgues to extend legal, if not moral, rights to the natural

environment

• ;ases his claim for standing less on the characteristics of

humans and more on the nature of legal rights

• Nature of legal rights

o Rights are products of evolutionary development

o Rights exist #hen they are recogni9ed !y somepu!lic authoritative !ody

o Rights function to protect rights&holders from in0ury,

and the list of rights&holders has !een continuallyexpanded

• $n order for a thing to count 0urally (or have legal rights*,

the follo#ing criteria must !e satisfied/o The thing can institute legal action at its !ehest

7



o $n determining the granting of legal relief, the court

must ta"e in0ury to it into accounto The relief must run to the !enefit of it

• .rguments in support of #hy giving legal rights to trees

and other natural o!0ects satisfies the three criteriao . guardian or conservator or trustee could !e

appointed to represent the interests of naturalo!0ects, in the same manner that corporations andmentally incompetent persons have legal guardiansor trustees

o . responsi!le party can !e held lia!le for “in0uring

the environmento Such party can !e as"ed to compensate the natural

o!0ect !y returning the environment to its health,#ith “environmental health descri!ing the state in#hich the environment existed !efore the in0ury

• -hallenges to the arguments

o

$t is not clear that #e can agree on the interests ofnatural o!0ects

o 4ho should !e the guardian of the environment5

"io#centric Ethics

• $nstrumental @alue and $ntrinsic @alue

o The role of value

-entral to comprehensive environmental philosophy is a

consideration of the nature and scope of value . full account of value determines the ethical domain !y helping to

define #hat o!0ects have moral relevance, or #hat o!0ects

deserve consideration Ethics is concerned #ith ho# #e should live, ho# #e should act,

the "ind of persons #e should !e8 +efining the full scope of these “shoulds is to give account of all

that has value or #ortho Types of value

$nstrumental @alue%is a function of usefulness

• .n o!0ect #ith instrumental value possesses that value

!ecause it can !e used to attain something else of value

• The instrumental value of an o!0ect lies not in the o!0ect

itself !ut in the uses to #hich that o!0ect can !e put

•

Environmental concerns rest usually on the instrumentalvalue of the environment

• 'o#ever, emphasi9ing only the instrumental value of

nature effectively means that the environment is heldhostage !y the interests and needs of humans

$ntrinsic @alue%is a value held in itself

• .n o!0ect has intrinsic value if #e recogni9e in them a

moral, spiritual, sym!olic, aesthetic, or cultural importance

8



• 4e value them for themselves, for #hat they mean, for

#hat they stand for, for #hat they are, not for ho# they areused

• Many environmental concerns rest upon the intrinsic value

that #e recogni9e in nature, as more than 0ust “resourcesin that they constitute part of our heritage and history

o Pragmatic Realities

+evelopment of a more systematic environmental philosophy

often involves a shift from a narro# focus on moral standing ormoral rights and responsi!ilities to a more general discussion ofvalue, especially intrinsic value

=nfortunately, appeals to intrinsic value are often met #ith

s"epticism Many !elieve that value is su!0ective, a matter of personal opinion

“;eauty is in the eyes of the !eholder

Thus, #hen a measura!le instrumental value (e8g8 profit* conflicts

#ith intangi!le and elusive intrinsic value (e8g8 !eauty of a

rainforest*, the instrumental value too often #ins !y default• ;iocentric Ethic%refers to any theory that vie# all life as possessing intrinsic

valueo .l!ert Sch#eit9er7s “Reverence for 1ife

Prior to the rise of modernity, the goodness of life #as connected

#ith the goodness of nature The rise of science and technology, and the industriali9ed society,

split the connection !et#een ethics and nature !y vie#ing natureas an indifferent, value&free, mechanical force

• Modern science often vie#s nature as a machine,

governed !y physical and mechanical la#s

• There is no good nor evil intrinsic to nature itself

• Set adrift in such a #orld, human ethics is left #ithout a

foundation Sch#eit9er sought to reesta!lish the !ond !et#een nature and

ethics%“reverence for life ethic

• .ll living things have an intrinsic value, a value that

commands our a#e and reverence

• 1ife is not a neutral, value&free “fact of the universe2 it is

good in itself2 it is inspiring and deserving of respect

• Reverence for life is not an ethical rule, !ut a fundamental

attitude%this is not an ethics of rules, !ut an ethics ofcharacter or virtue

o Rule&!ased ethics focuses on human actions andsee" to defend some rule or principle that #e use to

0udge #hether those actions are right or #rong (e8g8-lassical ethical theories such as deontology,utilitarianism, and natural la#*

o @irtue&!ased ethics constructs a philosophical

account of the morally&good person, descri!ing anddefending certain character traits of that good

9



o Paul Taylor7s ;iocentric Ethics (“Respect for Nature, AB*

.s a !iocentric theorist, Taylor sought a systematic and

comprehensive account of the moral relations that exist !et#eenhumans and other living things

Taylor sees this relationship as !eing !ased upon the inherent

#orth of all life Main arguments

• $t is meaningful to say that all living things have a good of

their o#n, as “teleological centers of life

• . thing7s good (o!0ective good* is not al#ays identical #ith

#hat that !eing !elieves is its good (su!0ective good*

• 4e should ignore the concept of apparent or su!0ective

good, and give preference to actual or o!0ective good Four central !eliefs

• 'umans are seen as mem!ers of Earth7s community of life

in the same sense and on the same terms as all otherliving things (!io&species e3uality*

• .ll species, including humans, are part of a system ofinterdependence

• .ll living things pursue their o#n good in their o#n #ays

(“teleological center of life !elief*

• 'umans are understood as not inherently superior to other

living things )eneral rules or duties that follo# from the attitude of respect for

nature

• Non&maleficence%re3uires that #e do no harm to any

organism2 that is, #e have a duty to refrain from any actthat #ould harm an organism #ith a good of its o#n

o

This duty applies only to moral agentso This is the most fundamental duty to nature

• Non&interference%re3uires that #e do not interfere #ith

the freedom of individual organisms or, in general, #ithecosystems of !iotic communities

o 4e should neither actively prevent organisms from

freely pursuing their good, nor should #e act so asto deny them the necessities re3uired to attain thatgoal

o 4e should not try to manipulate, control, modify, or

Gmanage7 natural ecosystems or other#ise in theirnormal functioning

• Fidelity%applies only to animals that live in the #ild2 #eshould not deceive or !etray #ild animals (occurs forexample in game hunting*

• Restitutive 0ustice%re3uires that #e #ho harm other living

organisms ma"e restitution to those organisms Priority Rules #hen there is conflict among the four duties

• 4hen there is conflict, non&maleficence ta"es precedence

over the other three

1



• 4hen conflicts cannot !e avoided for the remaining three

and #hen significant good can result #ithout permanentharm, restitutive 0ustice out#eighs fidelity, #hich out#eighsnon&interference

Priority rules for resolving conflicts !et#een ethical claims of

humans and other living things

• Principle of Self&defense%0ustify favoring human interests

#hen the conflicting interests of nonhuman organismsthreaten or endanger human health or life2 this principleholds only as a last resort

o Example/ exterminating an infectious organism or

insect

• Principle of Proportionality%if the non&!asic human

interest is incompati!le #ith the !asic interests of non&humans, satisfying the non&!asic human interest should !eprohi!ited

o Example/ 'uman interest in "illing reptiles to ma"e

fashiona!le shoes and hand!ags• Principle of Minimum 4rong%if non&!asic human interests

can !e made compati!le #ith the !asic interests ofnonhumans, even if they threaten or endanger the non&humans, satisfying the non&!asic human interest can !eallo#ed provided that the !asic interests of the non&humans can !e protected

o Example/ 'uman interest in damming a river for a

hydroelectric po#er plant, provided that ade3uatesafeguards #ill !e made to protect those otherliving things that #ill !e adversely affected

• Principle of +istri!utive <ustice%sets the conditions for

resolving conflicts !et#een the !asic interests of humansand non&humans2 fairness demands that !urdens !eshared e3ually and that the distri!ution of !enefits and!urdens !e accomplished impartially

• Principle of Restitutive <ustice%demands that restitution

!e made #henever a resolution of conflict fails to meet theconditions esta!lished !y the principles of minimum #rongor distri!utive 0ustice

-riticisms

• Emphasis on non&interference assumes that humans are

separate from nature%this still falls #ithin theanthropocentric !ias of humans !eing detached from

nature• Taylor7s ethics emphasi9es too much on individuals and

the adversarial relationships existing !et#een individuals

Ecocentric Ethics

11



• ;iocentric ethics involves a radical shift in ethical thin"ing, from anthropocentric

ethics, !y extending moral standing to much of the natural #orld

• 'o#ever, !iocentric ethics, to some people, has not gone far enough in that it

limits moral standing only to individual organisms that possess life

• Ecocentric ethics extends this !y giving moral consideration to nonliving natural

o!0ects and ecological systemso $t is holistic in the sense that ecological #holes, such as ecosystems or

species, as #ell as nonliving natural o!0ects and the relationships thatexist among natural o!0ects, are seen as deserving direct moralconsideration

• Ecology%the he science that studies living organisms in their home environment

• Ecological Models

o ?rganic Model

$n this vie#, individual species are related to their environment as

organs are related to the human !ody This model explains the “parts&to&#hole relationship in terms of

an organism and mature of change in terms of development or

maturity The ecosystem serves as one organic #hole, #ith a life of its o#n

Since ecological systems have a natural telos, #e can determine

in a scientifically o!0ective manner #hat is good and proper forthat system

o Ecosystems Model

Nature is organi9ed into ecosystems%e8g8 grasslands, la"es,

forests%that are structured in such a #ay that, through the normalfunctioning of the individual mem!ers, the systems maintain arelatively sta!le e3uili!rium

Nature is not reduci!le to a collection of independent and isolated

parts This #hole is not itself a !eing or organism #ith an independent

life, !ut simply a collection of living (!iotic* and non&living (a!iotic*elements organi9ed in a determinate #ay

Strands

• -ommunity Model

o Nature is understood as a community or society in

#hich parts are related to the #hole as citi9ens arerelated to a community or as individuals are relatedto their family

o Relationships among organisms exist in terms of

food exchanges/ individual mem!ers are identified

!y the food function they perform in the system orin the food chain (as producers, consumers, ordecomposers

• Energy Model

o The focus is on the ecosystem as an energy

system or circuito The ecosystem appears as 0ust another physical,

mechanical system !uilt around energy cycles(example/ car!on, oxygen, nitrogen, #ater*

12



o Since these cycles are ultimately driven !y solar

energy, ecologists can account for ecosystems interms of the energy that flo#s through variouschemical, !iological and climatic cycles

• Metaphysical $mplications of Ecology

o Ecocentric ethics and philosophies focus on the ecological communities

formed !y the interdependencies than upon individual organismso Thus, ecocentric ethics is holistic rather than individualistic

o 'olism%main principle/ “The #hole is more than the sum of its parts

o @arieties of 'olism

Metaphysical 'olism%4holes exist, apart from or as real as their

parts

• Thus, ecosystems have an independent existence !eyond

the existence of their individual elements Methodological or Epistemological 'olism%4e #ould have only

an ade3uate understanding of the #hole if #e understand theparts and the interdependencies that exist !et#een them

• .n ade3uate understanding of an ecosystem comes only#hen #e vie# individual organisms relative to the systemof interdependencies in #hich they exist

Ethical 'olism%Moral considera!ility should !e extended to the

#holes

• <ust as #e recogni9e that corporations have legal standing

independent of the legal standing of their mem!ers, ethicalstanding can also !e extended to ecosystems asemanating from their relevant individuals

• @ie#s on the 4ilderness

o 4ilderness%an area unspoiled and undistur!ed !y human activity

“88#here the earth and its community of life are untrammeled !y

man, #here man himself is a visitor #ho does not remain8o Models of the 4ilderness

Puritan Model

• The #ilderness is an area to !e avoided and feared

• $t is #here the faith of )od7s chosen people are tested

• The #ilderness presented a challenge to !e overcome, an

enemy to !e dominated, a threat to !e con3uered,something that must !e tamed and su!dued

• Thus, the Puritan model encouraged an aggressive and

antagonistic attitude to#ard the #ilderness 1oc"ean Model

• Sees the #ilderness as given !y )od to all people incommon, #aiting for an individual #ith initiative andam!ition to go out and #or" it and in the process, convert itinto private personal property

• No longer something to !e feared, the #ilderness

represents great potential for serving human ends2 it ispassive%serving no purposes other than those of itso#ners

13



• =no#ned and unused, the #ilderness is literally a

#asteland

• )ifford Pinchot and the early conservationist movement

adhered to this model Romantic Model

•

@ie#s the #ilderness as a sym!ol of innocence and purity• The #ilderness is the place to #hich humans can turn to

escape the corrupting influences of civili9ation

• Philosophical roots found in the #ritings of Rousseau, and

of .mericans Ralph 4aldo Emerson and 'enry +avidThoreau

o Rousseau%nature represented #hat #as genuine,

authentic and virtuous a!out human existenceo Emerson and Thoreau%“Ne# England

transcendentalism2 argued that unspoiled !yhuman activity, the #ilderness is the most authenticinstance of transcendent reality%it is the

environment in #hich humans may attain theirclosets contact #ith the highest truths and #ithspiritual excellence

• -riticisms

o The romantic model has a tendency to vie# the

unspoiled #ilderness are a relatively !enign andtemperate place2 in reality, the #ilderness can infact !e a harsh place

o Romantics tend to “romantici9e the #ilderness as

an image that existed in the pre&colonial past,ignoring the fact that the #ilderness in their mindsis home to indigenous cultures and civili9ations

o The romantic model still considers nature asseparate from humans, and not as integral #holes

o The model tend to see the #ilderness as a static

and unchanging place

• @arieties of Ecocentrism

o ).$. 'ypothesis (<ames 1oveloc" and 1ynn Margulis*

Suggested that the earth itself can !e understood as a living

organism -ritici9e human activities that degrade and pollute the planet

o The 1and Ethic (.ldo 1eopold*

The “1and Ethic enlarges the !oundaries of the moral community

to include soils, #aters, plants and animals, or collectively, the“land

The “land community is granted moral standing%individual

mem!ers of the community can !e treated as resources so longas the community itself is respected

o +eep Ecology

;asic platform as a statement of common principles

14



• The flourishing of human and non&human life on Earth has

intrinsic value8 The value of non&human life forms isindependent of the usefulness these may have for narro#human purposes8

• Richness and diversity of lifeforms are values in

themselves and contri!ute to the flourishing of human andnon&human life on Earth

• 'umans have not right to reduce this richness and

diversity except to satisfy vital needs8

• Present human interference #ith the non&human #orld is

excessive, and the situation is rapidly #orsening8

• The flourishing of human life and cultures is compati!le

#ith a su!stantial decrease in human population8 Theflourishing of non&human life re3uires such a decrease8

• Significant change of life conditions for !etter re3uires

change in policies8 These affect !asic economic,technological and ideological structures

• The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life3uality rather than adhering to a high standard of living8There #ill !e a profound a#areness of the difference!et#een “!ig and “great8

• Those #ho su!scri!e to the foregoing points have an

o!ligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attemptto implement the necessary changes

-riticisms

• +eep ecology appears to !e “misantrophic or “hating

humanity

• $t sounds as eco&fascistic in its orientations

• $t also appears as a uni3uely .merican or 4estern

ideology, essentially a radical !ranch of the #ildernesspreservation movement that is insensitive to the uni3ueneeds of poor and underdeveloped societies

Non&4estern Environmental 4orld&@ie#s

$o%parison !etween &estern and Eastern 'hilosophy

.spect 4estern Philosophy Eastern Philosophy

'uman Nature 'uman !eings are loo"ed uponas individuals, special and

uni3ue, #ith definitespecification !ased upon apersonal set of characteristicemanating from a soul that isuni3ue for every person

'uman !eings are loo"ed uponas a spec" in the universe of

things2 they do not possess auni3ue importance8 Theirexistence is merely acontinuation of anotherexistence in a long continuouschain

-oncept of Freedom Freedom is a valua!le andcentral commodity2 no ethics ispossi!le #ithout the existence

Freedom does no merit anyattention2 as human !eings arenot !orn free, i8e8 they do not

15



of freedom have a choice of parents, placeand date of !irth, !odilyfeatures, etc8

;asis of Ethics Ethics is !ased on theindividual

Ethics is !ased on the group

Theodicy or the

study of Supreme;eing

)od is a personal )od The Supreme ;eing is

impersonal

$deogenesis or the“origin of ideas

There is only one #ay to arriveat ideas%through sciencema"ing use of our senses,through the process ofa!straction

$deas could also !e reachedthrough other #ays, such asintuition, inspiration, andmysticism

Epistemology or thestudy of "no#ledge

Emphasis is on the materialaspect of "no#ledge to theexclusion of the spiritual2Science is of supreme value

Emphasis is on the spiritual adnon&material form of "no#ing2does not have a philosophy ofscience and does not put anyvalue on it

Metaphysics of thestudy of !eing

Essence and existence areseparate entities2 the individualhas !ut one life

$ndividuals are mere lin"s in achain and hence are of verylittle importance in the greatchain of !eing2 !elief inreincarnation

-osmology or thestudy of the earth ornature

The la#s governing the earthare not the same as those thatgovern human !eings2 human!eings are free, the earth is not

The earth is part of the entireuniverse of things2 rules or la#sgovern !oth human !eings andnature

Source/ Emerita S8 6uito8 ABBA8 The Merging 'hilosophy of East and &est( Manila/ +e1a Salle =niversity Press8

&estern En)iron%entalis% )ersus *ndigenous &orld#)iews

• Structurally, 4estern Environmentalism and its ideas of ;iocentrism and

Ecocentrism are similar in character to Non&4estern environmental #orld&vie#so ;oth argue for the centrality of nature and the displacement of

anthropocentrism as the dominant logic for human&ha!itat relationshipso ;oth are anti&capitalist, anti&materialist development in orientation

• 'o#ever, the context #ithin #hich 4estern environmental ethics emerge is totally

different from that of the Eastern and other indigenous #orldvie#so 4estern environmentalism emerge as a reaction to excessive

anthropocentrism manifested in capitalist development

These form of environmentalism provide a logic to environmentalmovements2 this logic emerge as an external agenda, or as analternative #orldvie# in relation to the existing one

o $ndigenous environmental #orldvie#s are organically derived from the

logic of human&ha!itat interactions that exist in indigenous societies These #orldvie#s provide organic logic to social movements that

resist the expansion of capitalist exploitation2 that is, they emergein the context of the realities of these movements, and are notexternally driven

16



• Environmental #orld&vie#s are highly changing, and are not static

o Thus, indigenous #orldvie#s should not !e romantici9ed

o $nstead, they should !e seen in the context of political struggle%as a

domain #ithin #hich competing agenda exist !oth to affecttransformation, or to #arrant resistance

17

ENVISOC Lecture Notes Module 1

Documents

Transcript of ENVISOC Lecture Notes Module 1