THE ETHICS OF ENVIRONMENTALISM: BALANCING COMPETING INTERESTS

Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 2005

kathie jenni WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS: AN OVERVIEW Although Western philosophers have considered humans' relationship to nature since ancient times, environmental ethics as a systematic discipline has emerged only in recent decades. In the early stages of the environmental movement, problems such as pollution, species extinctions, and the destruction of wilderness arose as concerns for anthropocentric, or human-centered, ethics. Philosophical discussions applied traditional ethical principles and theories to these problems, and "applied ethics" expanded to include those analyses. At the same time, some thinkers extended anthropocentric ethics by addressing our potential obligations to future generations of human beingshumans who do not yet exist. Problems such as resource conservation and toxic waste disposal were examined in light of responsibilities to future humans. Environmental ethics took a new turn when philosophers began to argue for nonanthropocentric ethics, which grants direct moral importance to natural objects besides humans. Animal rights philosophers took the lead in arguing for the moral standing of nonhuman animals, but they were soon followed by others who argued that we should extend moral standing to all living things, or even to all natural objects. These philosophers proposed extensions in the scope of application of Western moral principles and concepts. A more radical development came when the moral focus on individuals was challenged by thinkers who argued for holistic ethics: the expansion of moral responsibilities to collections, communities, or wholes. In these theories, entities such as species and ecosystems were accorded moral standing in place of, or in addition to, the individuals that constituted those wholes. Holistic theories challenged not only traditional conceptions of ethics, but also assumptions in metaphysics, epistemology, and political philosophy. Recently, environmental ethics has taken other new forms, from ecofeminism and the study of environmental racism, which connect KATHIE JENNI, professor, Department of Philosophy,

During the last two centuries, occidenta1 philosophical meditation has triumphantly adνanced through preνiously poorly charted fields. Science has real10cated the methods as wel1 as the goals of philosophy, forcing scholars to adνance a little further, embrace new cognitiνe chal1enges and οοττοεροαο to new social needs. As a result, our eνeryday life has become easier and ουι world is a better place to liνe ία. But still, an optimum situation is not achieνed. As a matter of fact, there are more things at stake ίη our era than there were in preνious ones. Even basic prerequisites for a prosperous life are not fully met. For the first time in the history of mankind, we can not eνen be sure about the surνiνal of ουι planet, not to mention well being οί it's liνing entities -man included. So far, where ίε the improνement? .Ουτ ancestors may not haνe had the luxury of fast transportation, immediate information οι adequate medical treatment, still they could take some things for granted: they positively knew that they and their successors would be giνen the minimum of chances: they, at least, would haνe a place to liνe.

2006

Many environmental philosophers currently hold that animal liberation theories are not relevant to the development of the field of environmental ethics. Instead, they contend that the field is traversed most successfully within the context of ecocentric and/or wilderness perspectives. In this thesis, I utilize textual and conceptual analysis to argue that animal liberation theories are vital to environmental ethics. I examine and critique the reasons given by prominent environmental ethicists—including, most notably, John Rodman, Baird Callicott, Robert Elliot, and Val Plumwood—for marginalizing animal liberation views within environmental ethics. While most of human-centered ethics has rested on a human/nature dichotomy in which the human side is overvalued, much of environmental ethics (especially that developed by ecocentric and wilderness proponents) rests on the same dichotomy, but weights the value on the nature side instead. I hold that many of the reasons for claiming that animal liberation theories fall outside of the scope of environmental ethics rest on a commitment to the nature/human dualism. I maintain that our contemporary world is not divided into the natural and the human, but, rather, consists of an ongoing, shifting relationship between human and nonhuman nature. I claim that the appropriate aim of environmental ethics is to explore the human relationship to the nonhuman natural world, and that this aim cannot be accomplished by theories committed to a human/nature dualism. I conclude that, by focusing on the significance of our choices as human beings in relationship to morally considerable others, the animal liberation movement offers us a way to theorize about environmental issues that transcends the human/nature dichotomy. This project is morally and politically compelling because the way in which environmental ethics as a field is defined has ramifications not only for the relationship of individual nonhuman animals to the natural environment, but for the relationship of humans to the natural environment as well. Looking at the relationship between human and nonhuman nature allows us to address the human roles and responsibilities not simply in the human community, but in the broader context of nonhuman nature as well.

The Southern Journal of Philosophy

Environmental ethics, as an academic field, was born out of professional philosophers' frustrations with anthropocentrism. In particular, philosophers such as Richard Sylvan and Holmes Rolston III found that canonical Western philosophy overlooked important questions regarding human relations to nonhuman animals and the broader world. Because many other traditions attend more closely to these relations, it is helpful to contextualize the initial development of academic environmental ethics as a critical response to a particular kind of deficiency characteristic of the Western tradition. In recent decades, the field has grown and broadened, and a more pluralistic, interdisciplinary, intercultural, and intersectional environmental ethics is emerging. This article traces developments in the field of environmental ethics during the last fifty years, beginning with discussions of the value of nature, deep ecology, the land ethic, environmental virtue ethics, and environmental pragmatism. Next, I turn to approaches that integrate social and environmental concerns through lenses that consider power dynamics and challenge relations of domination and oppression, bringing into focus questions of environmental and ecological justice. The final section considers some of the distinctive challenges associated with what some have dubbed "the Anthropocene," noting that the nature and designation of this epoch remain contested.

TJPRC, 2013

Since the beginning, humanity has been nourished by the various elements that constitute nature. However, use of the diverse renewable and non-renewable resources at our disposal, such as water, soil, fossil fuels, and metals, have not until quite recently translated into the abuse of our environment. While the west is encountering problems of waste and pollution due to overconsumption and prosperity, India is facing the same troubles due to overpopulation and severe poverty. Due to the reality that our earth is, for the most part, a closed system, we must come to terms with the fact that sustainability is the means to a continued survival. Environmental ethics inculcate a precious code in the individuals and societies and ought to be developed in each person, to command him/her as a force from within to make decisions and take actions on the different aspects of the environment which are not harmful to the local, national and international community. Environmental ethics has to sharpen the judgments of a person not to jeopardize the health and security of other fellow beings for the sake of material and political gains. The ethics command us not to endanger the health of an individual and communities, but to serve as a proud and honest person in the service of humanity. Environmental ethics is a shouting match between caricatures – between romantic, uninformed, antiscientific ―Greens‖ also called as Environmental holists (reflecting Eco-centric worldview) and unscrupulous, insensitive industrialists and developers called as Technocratic individualists (reflecting Anthropocentric worldview). Proponents of both extreme positions often fail to trace the logical consequences of their ideas. A middle path towards a culture of sustainability and permanence is advocated. Religion plays a great role in shaping our attitude towards the natural world. Long before Environment became the refrain of the global song at Stockholm and Rio, the ancient Indic heritage had already provided a spacious spiritual home for the environmental ethos. The Hindu, Islam, Jain, Vedic and Buddhist traditions established the principles of ecological harmony centuries ago - not because the world was perceived as heading for an imminent environmental disaster or destruction, nor because of any immediate utilitarian exigency, but through its quest for spiritual and physical symbiosis, synthesized in a system of ethical awareness and moral responsibility. It has rightly been said “The environmental crisis is an outward manifestation of the crisis of mind and spirit”. It all depends upon how do we think and act. If we want to check the environmental crisis, we will have to transform our thinking and attitude. That in turn would transform our deeds, leading to a better environment and better future. Environmental ethics can provide the guidelines for putting our beliefs into actions and help us to decide what to do for protecting the mother earth.

Environment ethics is a critical study of the normative issues and principles relevant to the relationship between human and natural world. In this article I tried to find that on what ethical basis should we decide how to deal with nature . The main concern is that to which inherent value can be ascribed to things that are not human, including animals, vegetation, and even land .The integrated efforts are to be put so as to examine the interrelated components of environment system . Environmental ethics has much to contribute to the solution of global environmental problems and raise awareness about environmental problems . Human have a duty to act as benign stewards of the earth.

Th is essay is an articulation of various contributions to anthropocosmic environmental ethics—an approach to environmental ethics emerging within the study of religion and ecology. In an anthropocosmic approach to environmental ethics, humans are intimately intertwined with the environment. Rather than placing value on a particular center (e.g., anthropocentric, biocentric, ecocentric) and thus excluding and marginalizing something of peripheral value, an anthropocos-mic approach to ethics seeks to facilitate the mutual implication of humanity and the natural world, thereby affirming the interconnectedness and mutual constitution of central and peripheral value. Although the adjective " anthropocosmic " may seem obscure or vague, an examination of the genealogy of the term, beginning with its appearance in the works of Mircea Eliade, discloses numerous resources that have important contributions to make to the development of viable environmental ethics.

Nnamdi Azikiwe Journal of Philosophy Vol. 11(2), 2019. Pp 87-100, 2019

Humanism as a mode of thought is traceable to the ancient era. Amongst other things, it is characterised by a kind of human-centeredness (homocentrism). Especially in its modern conception, it is an emphasis on the worth of human experiences as the benchmark for decision making; and holds that humans should take responsibility for their actions without recourse to supernaturalism, ideology, or religion. This way of thinking has influenced a wide range of human activities including perceptions about man, his place within the natural world, and how he interacts with it. Employing the evaluative method, this paper appraised the link between, as well as the influence, of humanism on environmentalism. Particularly, since the former is generally viewed as being anthropocentric and thus anti-environment; the paper sought to verify this claim. It was found that, in spite of its controversial status, humanism has certain pro-nature elements that have positively driven the cause of environmentalism. Thus, the nexus between humanism and the environment is complementary and not totally antithetical as generally perceived. KEYWORDS: Humanism, Environmentalism, Dialogue, Homocentrism, Philosophy