Environmental ethics

Definition: Field of inquiry concerned with evaluating the ethical responsibilities humans have for the natural world

The issue of human beings’ relationship to the natural world—including humans’ responsibility for stewardship of the land and natural resources, and for protection or preservation of plant and animal life—has long been a part of philosophical inquiry. Points of view in the field of environmental ethics continue to evolve.

The ethical responsibilities that humans have for the natural world, including natural resources, have been examined from many, often conflicting, perspectives, including anthropocentrism, individualism, ecocentrism, and ecofeminism. Each perspective has strengths and weaknesses.

Anthropocentrism is a human-centered philosophy that holds that moral values should be limited to humans and should not be extended to other creatures or to nature as a whole. A justification for this perspective is that moral relationships are sets of reciprocal rules followed by humans in their mutual relationships. Nonhumans are excluded from moral relationships because they lack comprehension of these rules. Some anthropocentrists argue that, from an evolutionary perspective, successful species should not work for the net good of other species; species that have done so in the past have become extinct.

Some anthropocentrists oppose restrictions on the use of natural resources because such restrictions may have negative impacts—for example, the loss of jobs or the loss of products beneficial to humans. Others stress that the natural world is a critical life-support system for humans and advocate effective environmental controls so that it will maintain its full value for present and future generations. This anthropocentric regard for the environment is based on the practical value of the natural world for meeting human needs rather than on a belief that the natural world has intrinsic value.

Those who hold an individualist philosophy believe that humans should extend moral concern to individual animals of certain species. Individualists include advocates of animal liberation and animal rights. Individualists accept that all humans have intrinsic value; they also argue that because some animals share morally relevant qualities valued in humans, these animals should be extended moral concern. Animal liberationists define the capacity for pleasure and pain (sentience) as the morally relevant feature to be considered. Animal rightists value more complex qualities, including desires, consciousness, a sense of the future, intentionality, and memories; they commonly associate these qualities with most mammals. Individualists generally are not concerned with the use of natural resources unless that use involves a direct threat to individuals of a species deserving moral concern, as through hunting or trapping.

Ecocentrism is based on the belief that the natural world has intrinsic value; it includes both the land ethic and deep ecology perspectives. Land ethic advocates believe that moral concern should be extended to the natural world, including natural units such as ecosystems, watersheds, and bioregions. Land ethic advocates emphasize respect (rather than rights) for the natural world. Ecocentrists may justify a land ethic by noting that all living creatures have a common origin and history on the planet and are ecologically connected and interdependent. The notions of common origin and history, as well as interdependence, are viewed as analogous to the human concept of family. Ecocentrists view humans as members of a large family comprising all of nature. Because family relationships entail not only privileges but also responsibilities for the well-being of the other family members and their environment, it follows that humans have responsibility for the natural world.

Impact on land health is an important criterion by which natural resource use is assessed in a land ethic. Characteristics of land health include the occurrence of natural ecological functioning, good soil fertility, absence of erosion, and having all the original species properly represented at a site (biodiversity). From a land ethic perspective, natural resource use should minimize long-term impacts on land health or should even enhance land health.

Deep ecology is often viewed as an ecosophy—an ecological wisdom that calls for a deep questioning of lifestyles and attitudes. Some guidelines regularly cited by deep ecologists include living lives that are simple in means but rich in ends, honoring and empathizing with all life-forms, and maximizing the diversity of human and nonhuman life.

Ecofeminists believe that many environmental problems are tied to human beings’ desire to dominate nature, and this desire is closely linked with the problem of the domination of women and other groups in society. Ecofeminists believe that these problems would decline with a transformation in societal attitudes from dualistic, hierarchical, and patriarchal thinking to an emphasis on enrichment of underlying relationships and greater focus on egalitarian, empathetic, and nonviolent attitudes. Ecofeminism emphasizes less intrusive and more gentle use of natural resources.

For people seeking to pursue activities consistent with good environmental ethics, choices may be complex. In many instances these may involve questions of priority. For example, a decision point may involve whether it is more ethical to secure the well-being of people of marginalized economic status versus a natural habitat. Is it more ethical to refrain from working for a dubious corporate polluter, or is it better to try to enact ethical change from within?

Many Westerners have reexamined established cultural and religious perspectives for inspiration and insights in developing an environmental ethic. Native American cultures are often viewed as a source of moral insights on the human relationship to the environment. While it is difficult to generalize, given the many diverse Native American cultures, several perspectives appear common to many Native American groups: a strong sense of identity with a specific geographic feature, such as a river or a mountain; the notion that all of the world is enspirited and has being, life, and self-consciousness; and a strong sense of kinship with the natural world. Such Native American views are commonly associated with reduced environmental impacts and harmonious relationships with the natural world.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share common traditions; each contains elements upon which scholars have drawn for insights into environmental responsibility. Some scholars emphasize portions of the biblical book of Genesis, where the world is seen as God’s creation for the free use and enjoyment of humans. Subjugation and use of nature are acceptable, but the land also must be appreciated and protected as belonging to God. Others emphasize the special role of humans as caretakers or advocate close relationships to the natural world, as exemplified by Saint Francis of Assisi. Attitudes toward the natural world and the use of natural resources vary widely among different groups of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Some Eastern philosophies, such as Daoism and Buddhism, contain insights for environmental ethics. Both encourage a caring behavior toward nature.

Bibliography

Appiah, Kwame Anthony. “Is It OK to Take a Law-Firm Job Defending Climate Villains?” The New York Times, 6 Sept. 2022, www.nytimes.com/2022/09/06/magazine/law-firm-job-ethics. Accessed 5 Feb. 2023.

Armstrong, Susan J., and Richard G. Botzler, eds. Environmental Ethics: Divergence and Convergence. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw, 2003. Print.

DesJardins, Joseph R. Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy. 4th ed. Belmont: Thomson, 2006. Print.

“Journals of Interest.” ISEE-International Society for Environmental Ethics, enviroethics.org/journals-of-interest. Accessed 5 Feb. 2023.

Keller, David R., ed. Environmental Ethics: The Big Questions. Malden: Blackwell, 2010. Print.

Meyer, Robinson. “Think Twice About Working for a Climate Villain.” The Atlantic, 14 Sept. 2022, www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/09/climate-villain-lawyers-work-ethics/671429. Accessed 5 Feb. 2023.

Pojman, Louis P., and Paul Pojman, eds. Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application. 5th ed. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2008. Print.

Robinson, Deena. "Fourteen Biggest Environmental Problems of 2023."Earth.org,, 9 Jan. 2023,earth.org/the-biggest-environmental-problems-of-our-lifetime. Accessed 5 Feb. 2023.

Sterba, James P., ed. Earth Ethics: Introductory Readings on Animal Rights and Environmental Ethics. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2000. Print.