WOLAITA SODO UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES, DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL STUDIES

COURSE NAME: ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COURSE CODE: CESt 3073 ECTS: 5

TARGATED GROUP: CIVICS AND ETHICAL STUDIES DEPT YEAR: III

COURSE INSTRUCTOR’S NAME: MATUSALA S. (Ass. Professor of Philosophy)

COURSE DESCRIPTION
We are always involved in ethics and cannot avoid it, for what we do and what we do not do is always a possible subject of ethical
evaluation. When one thinks about what s/he ought to do, consciously or unconsciously, involves in ethics. The main concern of
Western ethics is human beings and their social environment. However, in this course the emphasis is how and what should be
human’s relation with nonhuman natural world. The course introduces students with the concern of environmental ethics i.e. the
ethical responsibility of human beings for natural environment. Furthermore, Students will examine the relation between development
theories and practices and authentic development which is advocated by development ethicists.

COURSE OBJECTIVES

Upon a successful completion of this course, students will be able to:

. Examine the relationship between ethics and development
. Discuss the importance of environmental ethics for a sound and authentic development
. Critically evaluate development theories and practices.
. Discern whether we have a moral obligation to preserve and protect nature
. Analyze the concept of development held by development ethicists

Conceptual focus Activities/tasks Readings

Week
1 CHAPTER ONE Students attend lecture Boss PP. 1-41
Introduction: what is ethics? - Take notes
1.1 Normative vs non normative -Forward questions
1.2.What is applied ethics? -discussions and argue Handout:pp5-28
-perform home study

1
 2-5 CHAPTERTWO: DEVELOPMENT ETHICS. Students attend lecture Handout:pp5-28pp: 37-52,105-
2.1.Development ethics as a new discipline - Take notes 117
2.2.Nature and methods -Forward questions
2.3. Goals of development ethics and its strategies -discussions and argue
2.4. environmental ethics and sustainable development -perform home study
2.4.1. sustainability and response to future generation
Desjardins, Joseph
R. (2013).p. 74ff
2.5. Technology for development
6-10 Students attend lecture Andrew Light & Holmes
CHAPTERTHREE: ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS - Take notes Rolston(2003):pp:1-24
3.1Introduction :Ethics and Environmental Ethics -Forward questions
3.2 Why an environmental ethics? -discussions and argue
3.3What is environmental ethics?
 An overview of environmental ethics
-perform home study
3.3.1Central questions in environmental ethics
3.3.2 Anthropocentric approaches to environmental ethics
3.3.3.Responses to Mainstream environmental ethics
 Deep ecology Desjardins, Joseph
 Eco feminism R. (2013).pp 125-
3.4 Theories of environmental ethics: Biocentrism, wilderness, ecology,
the land ethic, environmental justice, pluralism, pragmatism
253
3.5. African Environmental ethics: the moral status of nature, Ubuntu and Chemhuru, M. (ed.)
the environment, African relationalism (2019).
11-14 CHAPTER FOUR: ANIMAL RIGHT Students attend lecture
4.1. Animals: are they morally valuable as human - Take notes Bernnan,Andrew and
beings? -Forward questions Lo,Y.S. (2010). P.38ff
4.2. Rights and welfare of nonhuman animals -discussions and argue Andrew Light & Holmes
.The legal and moral status of nonhuman animals Rolston (2003) pp:85-94
-perform home study
Articles for review and group presentation Singer, 343-53
4.2.1. Is there a place for animals in the moral consideration of nature?
Do assignment &
(Eric Katz) present
4.2.2 from animal liberation (Peter Singer )
4.2.3 Do animals have right? (Carl Cohen)

ASSESSMENT METHODS
1.Test #1------20% 2.Mid Exam------20% 3.Individual assignment------10% 4.Group assignment and presentation-----10%
5.Final exam-------40%

2
 TEXT BOOKS
Goulet, D. (1996) A New Discipline: Development Ethics. Kellogg Institute
Light, A and Rolston, H (2003) Environmental ethics, Blackwell publishing
References
Bernnan, Andrew and Lo,Y.S. (2010). Understanding environmental Philosophy. Routledge: New York.
Boss, J.A.(1999) Analyzing Moral Issues. Mayfield Publishing Company.
Chemhuru, M. (ed.) (2019). African Environmental Ethics: A critical Reader: Springer Nature.
Desjardins,Joseph R. (2013). Environmental Ethics: an Introduction to Environmental Philosophy. (5th ed.). Wadsworth
Goulet, Denis. (2006). Development Ethics at Work: Exploration- 1960-2002. Routledge.
Pojman, L.P., Pojman, P. and Mcshane, K. (2017). Environmental Ethics: Theory and Practice. (7th ed.) Cengage Learning
Singer, P.(ed.) (1993) A Companion to Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

3
 Unit One: Introduction: Ethics

what is ethics?

The word ethics has its root in the Greek word ethos, meaning “custom” or “habit.” The Latin word mores, from
which we get the word morality, is basically synonymous with the word ethos. In their common usage, the word
ethics and morality appear to reflect their etymology. Ordinarily, they refer to the social or cultural standards and
principles by which we customarily judge things as “right,” “wrong,” “good,” and “bad.” Usually, we focus on
human beings and their actions as the main objects of our moral or ethical evaluation. We have an extensive
vocabulary for expressing such judgments about people and their conduct _ with terms such as ethical, moral,
unethical, immoral and amoral, to cite the most obvious.

Activity 2: Have you ever judged actions of animals – cows, dogs, lions, hyenas or wolves – using terms
moral/immoral or right/ wrong? Why not?

The discipline called ethics or moral philosophy differs from the ordinary, commonsense approach, for it begins
with an explicit awareness of the moral dimensions of our lives. Rather than assuming ethical or moral matters as
given, it focuses on these with an attitude of questioning, making deliberate efforts to reflect on the issues,
problems and concepts involved.

4
In its pursuits, ethics searches for answers through rigorous methods of examination, and it subjects its own claims
to intense scrutiny. Its ultimate aim is to provide systematic explanations and well-grounded arguments regarding
ethical questions.

Thus, ethics may be defined as the thoughtful analysis and evaluation of the standards and principles by which we
issue judgments in terms of moral values.

Ethics is the philosophical study of values and what constitutes good and bad human conduct. It is concerned with
questions of right and wrong, of duty and obligation and of moral responsibility. Briefly, ethics, as a formal field of
philosophical inquiry, is the philosophical study of morality.

Activity3: Is ethics the exclusive province of philosophers? Is it only a matter of abstract theorization? What is its
value in human life?

Although ethics is predominantly a philosophical field of inquiry, it is not the exclusive province of philosophers.
Writers, scientists, politicians, religious leaders, judges, educators, students and laypersons – in short, people from
all walks of life – have adopted the philosophical spirit in their reflections on moral questions.

Nor is ethics a matter of abstract theorizing and sheer speculation having little or no relevance for our real lives.
But rather it offers us ways of thinking about the moral features of our own existence – our assumptions, beliefs,

5
judgments, ideas, concepts, values and conducts – in a serious and careful manner. Significantly, then, such modes
of thought always open up paths for self-awareness and self reflection.

The word ethics comes from the Greek ethos, meaning something like ‘morals’. In fact, ethics is defined as the
systematic reflection on what is moral. In this definition, morality is the whole of opinions, decisions and actions
with which people express what they think is good or right. So, in short, to think ethically, you need to
systematically reflect on what people think is good or right.

Activity 4: Can you mention some of the major branches of ethics?

The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right
and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics,
normative ethics, and applied ethics. Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what
they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions?
Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in
ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Normative ethics takes on a more practical task,
which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good
habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others.
Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights,
environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war.

6
By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to resolve these
controversial issues. The lines of distinction between metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often
blurry. For example, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of
controversial behavior. But it also depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of self-rule and
the right to life, which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on
metaethical issues such as, “where do rights come from?” and “what kind of beings have rights?

Applied ethics is one of the major branches of ethics which consists of the analysis of specific, controversial moral
issues.

The task in applied ethics is to resolve specific moral issues and morally concrete cases which arise in different
areas of life. It attempts to explain and justify positions on specific moral problems such as capital punishment,
euthanasia, abortion, sex outside marriage, animal rights, etc. Applied ethics borrows insights from metaethics and
theoretical normative ethics in an attempt to resolve specific moral problem (thus the name ‘applied ethics’).
When, for example, applied to medicine, this form of applied ethics is called “medical ethics” (sometimes expand
to include biotechnology and called “bioethics”). When applied to commerce, this becomes “business ethics”;
when applied to the press, “journalism ethics”; when applied to engineering; “engineering ethics and so on. As an
area of enquiry environmental ethics is one area of applied ethics. One thing is different about environmental
ethics, however. Many environmental ethicists, alone among various other applied ethicists, envision that the scope
of their field moves outside the human sphere.

7
Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of the analysis of specific, controversial moral issues.

Activity 5: What is the difference between normative ethics and non

normative ethics? Discuss some of the normative theories.

In recent years applied ethical issues have been subdivided into convenient groups such as medical ethics, business
ethics, environmental ethics, sexual ethics, and social ethics. Generally speaking, two features are necessary for an
issue to be considered an "applied ethical issue."

First, the issue needs to be controversial in the sense that there are significant groups of people both for and against
the issue at hand. The issue of drive-by shooting, for example, is not an applied ethical issue, since virtually
everyone agrees that this practice is grossly immoral. By contrast, the issue of gun control would be an applied
ethical issue since there are significant groups of people both for and against gun control.

The second requirement for an issue to be an applied ethical issue is that it must be a distinctly moral issue. On any
given day, the media presents us with an array of sensitive issues such as affirmative action policies, gays in the
military, involuntary commitment of the mentally impaired, capitalistic vs. socialistic business practices, public vs.
private health care systems, or energy conservation. Although all of these issues are controversial and have an
important impact on society, they are not all moral issues. Some are only issues of social policy. The aim of social
policy is to help make a given society run efficiently by devising conventions, such as traffic laws, tax laws, and
zoning codes. Moral issues, by contrast, concern more universally obligatory practices, such as our duty to avoid

8
lying, and are not confined to individual societies. Frequently, issues of social policy and morality overlap, as with
murder which is both socially prohibited and immoral.

However, the two groups of issues are often distinct. For example, many people would argue that sexual
promiscuity is immoral, but may not feel that there should be social policies regulating sexual conduct, or laws
punishing us for promiscuity. Similarly, some social policies forbid residents in certain neighborhoods from having
yard sales. But, so long as the neighbors are not offended, there is nothing immoral in itself about a resident having
a yard sale in one of these neighborhoods. Thus, to qualify as an applied ethical issue, the issue must be more than
one of mere social policy: it must be morally relevant as well.

Activity 6: When does a case involve troubling moral issue?

Moral issues are, roughly, those issues which raise normative questions about the rights and welfare of persons
and other sentient beings, and about the character of the agent, in particular, about the kinds of persons we should
strive to become. Normative questions are questions of value (e.g., “was it morally permissible for X to have that
abortion?”) as opposed to questions of mere fact (e.g., “Did X decide to have the abortion?”). The distinction
between matters of value and matters of fact is often called ‘the normative/descriptive distinction.’

In theory, resolving particular applied ethical issues should be easy. With the issue of abortion, for example, we
would simply determine its morality by consulting our normative principle of choice, such as act-utilitarianism. If a
given abortion produces greater benefit than disbenefit, then, according to act-utilitarianism it would be morally

9
acceptable to have the abortion. Unfortunately, there are perhaps hundreds of rival normative principles from
which to choose, many of which yield opposite conclusions. Thus, the stalemate in normative ethics between
conflicting theories prevents us from using a single decisive procedure for determining the morality of an issue.
The solution to this stalemate is to consult several representative normative principles on a given issue and see
where the weight of the evidence lies.

Normative Principles Used In Applied Ethical Discussions: Arriving at a short list of representative normative
principles is itself a challenging task. The principles selected must not be too narrowly focused, such as a version
of act-egoism which might focus only on an action's short-term benefit. The principles must also be seen as having
merit by people on both side of an applied ethical issue. For this reason, principles which appeal to our duty to God
are not usually cited since this would have no impact on a nonbeliever engaged in the debate.

The following principles are the ones most commonly appealed to in applied ethical discussions:

♦ Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for the individual
in question.

♦ Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for society.

♦ Principle of benevolence: help those in need.

♦ Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests when they cannot do so themselves.

10
♦ Principle of harm: do not harm others.

♦ Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.

♦ Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.

♦ Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person's freedom over his/her actions or physical body.

♦ Principle of justice: acknowledge a person's right to due process, fair compensation for harm done, and fair
distribution of benefits.

♦ Rights: acknowledge a person's rights to life, information, privacy, free expression, and safety.

The above principles represent the spectrum of traditional normative principles and are derived from specific
consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories. The first two principles, personal benefit and social benefit, are
consequentialist since they appeal to the consequences of an action as it affects the individual or society. The
remaining principles are non-consequentialist and derive from duty-based and rights-based theories. The principles
of benevolence, paternalism, harm, honesty, and lawfulness derive from non-consequentialist duties we have
toward others. The principles of autonomy, justice, and the various rights derive from non-consequentialist moral
rights.

CHAPTER TWO: DEVELOPMENT ETHICS

11
 Introduction

Development’ has long been equated with modernization and Westernization and studied as a straightforward
economic issue. The discipline of economics has been the main source of policy prescription for development
decision makers. This view is now widely criticized as ethnocentric and as economically reductionist. Change is
occurring: economics itself is reintegrating ethics into its conceptualization, methodology, and analysis; a new
paradigm of development is in gestation; and a new discipline, development ethics, has come into being.
Development ethics centers its study of development on the value questions posed: What is the relation between
having goods and being good in the pursuit of the good life; what are the foundations of a just society; and what
stance should societies adopt toward nature? The new discipline emerges from two sources, which are now
converging: from engagement in development action to the formulation of ethical theory, and from a critique of
mainstream ethical theory to the crafting of normative strategies to guide development practice. Development
ethics has a dual mission: to render the economy more human and to keep hope alive in the face of the seeming
impossibility of achieving human development for all.

Dear learners, before examining what development ethics is and its focus, it is important to discuss briefly what
development means.

All definitions of development contain the central notion of a process of change from a less desirable to a more
desirable kind of society – in short the notion of progress. Beyond this, however, lies some basic disagreement over
questions such as: Development of what? How is what is desirable defined, and by whom? How is progress to be

12
achieved? What if (as generally seems to be the case) progress for one group within a society is gained at the
expense of other groups?

Thus, just as there are many answers to the questions of what constitutes progress, so there are many meanings
given to ‘development’.

Dear learners, let us explore some of different definitions of development.

2.1. Definitions of Development

1. Economic well-being and GNP per capita: Perhaps the simplest way of thinking about development is that it
means an increase in prosperity. At a national level, the most used measure of economic well-being is gross
national product (GNP). GNP uses market valuations, and is in practice a measure of national income; GNP per
capita gives an indication of the average material living standard of a nation’s people. It is a measure of the average
income of each member of the population including what they may earn or receive from abroad.

An increase in GNP per capita could mean development in that it implies better material living standards and less
poverty. However, a measure such as GNP per capita has limitation regarding giving full indication of the
prevalence of poverty. GNP per capita is a measure of average income based on market valuations, and thus there
are several ways in which the measure fails to give full indication of the incidence of poverty.

13
One of them is, as an average measure, GNP per capita tells us nothing about income distribution within a country.
Also, even where income distribution figures exist, they will generally be based on surveys carried out using the
household as a unit rather than individuals.

In short, GNP as an indicator underestimates both subsistence and collective goods, whereas it overvalues the
commercialized, the individualized and the organized.

2. Economic development: There is another sense in which an increase in GNP per capita even though it does not
relate precisely to individuals’ improved well being or reduced incidence of poverty. An increased GNP – or, more
precisely, increased GDP – means economic growth. Economic growth is simply a continued increase in the size of
an economy, i.e. a sustained increase in output over a period. However, for most economists development is more
than this. Whereas growth means more of the same type of output, development implies more thoroughgoing
changes, changes in the social and technical relations of production. Thus the productive capacity of a society as a
whole has to increase, rather than just increasing productivity within its productive enterprises.

Economic development, thus, is raising the productive capacities of societies, in terms of their technologies (more
efficient tools and machines), technical cultures (knowledge of nature, research and capacity to develop improved
technologies), and the physical, technical and organizational capacities and skills of those engaged in production.

3. Industrialization and modernization: there are two different was defining industry. The first divides all
economic activities into sectors and defines industry as the production of all material goods not derived directly
from the land. Industry, thus, comprises the mining, energy and manufacturing sectors, and does not include
14
agriculture or services. The second definition emphasizes technical and social change: an industrial production
process is one that uses advanced technology and a complex technical division of labour, and is linked to other
forms of production through combining a wide range of raw materials, skills and sources of energy. Thus
industrialization can mean simply an increased percentage of GDP from industrial sector output, or, more
fundamentally, a general change of social structure, organization, scale, concentration and ways of thinking
towards giving primacy to productivity, efficiency and instrumentality.

The view of development as modernization comes particularly from the 1950s and 1960s. For example,
historically, modernization is the process of change toward those types of social, economic and political systems
that have developed in Western Europe and North America from the 17 th century to the 19th and have then spread to
other countries. According to Smelter, modernization is the following interrelated technical, economic and
ecological processes’: in the realm of technology, the change from simple and traditionalized techniques towards
the application of scientific knowledge; in agriculture, the evolution from subsistence farming towards
commercial production of agricultural goods. This means specialization in cash crops, purchase of non-agricultural
products in the market, and often agricultural wage labor; in industry, the transition from the use of human and
animal power towards industrialization proper, or men aggregated at power-driven machines, working for
monetary return with the products of manufacturing processes entering into a market based on a network of
exchange relation; in ecological arrangements, the movement from farm and village towards urban centers.

15
4. Human needs and conditions for development: another approach to development is to start not from
production but from human needs. Such an approach is advocated by Dudley Seers and he points out the
importance of value judgments in deciding what is or is not development. Seers suggests that the realization of the
potential of human personality is a universally acceptable aim, and development must therefore entail ensuring the
conditions for achieving this aim. The first three conditions are:

♦ the capacity to obtain physical necessities (particularly food);

♦ a job (not necessarily paid employment, but including studying, working on a family farm or keeping house)
and

♦ equality, which should be considered an objective in its own right.

Seers continues: “the questions to ask about a country’s development are therefore: what has been happening to
poverty? What has been happening to unemployment? What has been happening to inequality? If all three of these
have become less severe, then without doubt this has been a period of development for the country concerned. If
one or two of these central problems have been growing worse, especially all three have, it would be strange to call
the result ‘development’”.

Seers challenges the type of economic definition which emphasis on productivity, growth at any price, and
increasing GNP per capita as the ultimate goal. As we have seen economic development of this type does not
necessarily reduce the numbers in poverty, let alone meet other human needs such as those pointed to by Seers.

16
Another strand of thinking on what is desirable for includes non-economic factors directly in what is meant by
development. Such approach is advocated by Amartya Sen and views poverty in terms not of poor material living
standards but of lack of choice or capability: poverty meaning the failure to be able to take a full part in human
society.

Denis Goulet also describes it as: the prevalent emotion of underdevelopment is a sense of personal and societal
impotence in the face of disease and death, of confusion and ignorance as one gropes to understand change, of
servility towards men whose decisions govern the course of events, of hopelessness before hunger and natural
catastrophe. Chronic poverty is a cruel kind of hell, and one cannot understand how cruel that hell is merely by
gazing upon poverty as an object. In these terms, if development means combating or ameliorating poverty, then
development means restoring or enhancing basic human capabilities and freedoms.

According to Seers the following makes a full list of eight conditions for what we might call human-needs centered
development. Human-needs centered development is a term for development where the level of satisfaction of
various dimensions of human needs is considered to have improved. The eight conditions for development are:

♦low levels of material poverty;

♦low level of unemployment;

♦relative equality;

♦democratization of political life;

17
♦‘true’ national independence both economically and politically;

♦good literacy and education levels;

♦relatively equal status for women and participation by women and

♦sustainable ability to meet future needs.

Any comprehensive definition of development is likely to combine a number of such dimensions and to be based
on supposedly universal values.

Activity 1: Compare and contrast different definitions of development

In summery, development has a range of meanings, from basic economic well-being (measured more or less badly
by GNP per capita) to broad notions of economic development incorporating wholesale societal change,
modernization and industrialization, and comprehensive definitions comprising lists o human needs to be satisfied
that go way beyond the material to include social and political aspects.

Dear learners, having discussed various meanings of development now let us look at the meaning, sources, scope
and nature of the new discipline called development ethics.

2.2. Definition and Origins of Development Ethics

18
Development ethics comes to fill the gap in the ethical study of development by a holistic, defined in a macro level,
normative and practical way. According to Nigel Dower, former president of International Development Ethics
Association (IDEA), “international development ethics is the ethical reflection on the ends and means of local,
national and global development”. From the same perspective, Crocker defines development ethics as an ethical
deliberation on the ends and means of socioeconomic change in poor countries and regions and mainly focuses on
the element of poverty and the division between rich and poor countries – North and South – under moral issues.
Development ethics combines tasks and methodological instruments from a variety of scientific fields such as
economics, political sciences, religious studies, anthropology, environmental studies, ecology and other. Thereby it
can be characterized as a multidisciplinary area of study, or as Gasper states as an “interdisciplinary meeting
place”. Goulet describes it as a kind of ‘disciplined eclecticism’, as he argues “eclectic in its choice of subject
matter but disciplined in its study of it”.

Regarding its origins, development ethics can be characterized as a relatively new field of study. Even though the
ethical question of ‘what is a good life?’ and the term ‘eudemonia’ –a synonymous of happiness - trace back to
ancient Greek philosophers and particularly to Aristotle’s ‘Nicomachean Ethics’, the cultivation of moral and
ethical issues regarding development studies and the formulation of development ethics such as came to the front
with the rise of an economic and humanistic movement in 1950s. This humanistic approach of the economy and
society is theoretically represented by the French economist Louis Joseph Lebret and his student American Denis
Goulet and defines development “as the basic question of values and the creation of a new civilization”. Mohandas
Gandhi in India and the Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal could be labeled as precursors of development ethics.

19
For many years development has been perceived as a straightforward economic issue. Orthodox economists, policy
makers, governors, interregional organizations and so on, confront the problem of underdevelopment in an
instrumental and administrational way. History has shown that this functional approach cannot provide answers to
the issue of development. It is easy to measure the problem but difficult to solve it. Contemporary worldwide status
quo proves that no considerable distance has been covered with regard to ordinary problems such as water scarcity,
famine, and bad sanitary conditions in the non-developed third world.

At the same time, within developed countries, new problems come to the fore, with massive consumption on the
one side and new massive social groups under the poverty line on the other. Moreover on an international scale,
even in cases that development in terms of growth or industrial expansion has taken place, e.g. China and/or India,
the ecological destruction is huge. Hence, development should be re- examined under considerations that arose
from the ethical question of ‘development for what?’

Development ethics aspires to show the road towards a new development paradigm that investigates development
in light of fundamental ancient ethical queries on the meaning of the good life, the foundation of justice in society
and the human stance towards nature. The study of development ethics attempts to discuss and codify the
aforementioned ethical quires borrowing scientific instruments from economists, political studies, anthropologists,
environmental scientists and others. Thus, it can be characterized as an interdisciplinary area. To this effort, the
contribution of Denis Goulet is distinctive. He offers the conceptual frame and gives the dimensions of a relatively
new field of study. .

20
Many prominent scholars, among them Dower, Crocker, Clark, Gasper, incorporate the methodological principles
of Goulet with regards to development ethics approach, maintaining their own antinomies.

2.3. A brief view to the Ethical Study of Development

During the 20th century, for many economists, particularly in lines of orthodox economics, development was
viewed as a conventional problem of economic growth in terms of the increase of material goods. The
technological expansion, the boost of the production, the sense that people could overcome nature, led many
economists, government officials and planners to an ‘engineering’ approach to the concept of development.
Development was perceived as an absolutely measurable matter, as a synonymous of economic growth- the
variation of GDP for instance. Ethical inquiries on the concept of development were viewed mostly as an affair for
philosophers and humanists than economists. Regarding the debate within ethics and economics, Robbins asserts
that “unfortunately it does not seem logically possible to associate the two studies in any form but mere
juxtaposition. Economics deal with ascertainable facts; ethics with valuations and obligations. The two fields of
enquiry are not on the same plane of discourse”. Robbins expresses the vein in economic study that perceives
economics as a science which takes place after the elucidation of moral and ethical propositions.

On the other hand, there are those that advocate the coexistence of ethical justifications and humanistic ideas with
rational economic methodology. This includes the discussion between means and ends in human development.
Hardison and Myers underline that “there need be no conflict between the economists and the humanists…The
development of man for himself may still be considered the ultimate end but economic progress can also be one of

21
the principal means of attaining it”. Clark also suggests a closer relation of philosophers and social scientists in the
field of development. He argues that even a great attempt has been made towards this direction; more empirical
work is needed in order for ethical considerations (such as ‘what is good life’) to be adjusted to real development
practices. Other influential studies in the social science perspective within the context of an ethical justification of
development include those of Seers, Nussbaum and others.

For economists, the perception that economic policy as well as economic efficiency hinges on deontological ethics
has gradually been established in works such as e.g. Polanyi, Sen, Hausman and McPherson. More precisely,
Hausman and McPherson codify the reasons why economists should be interested in moral questions. Accordingly,
i) the morality of agents affects their behaviour and as a consequence the economic upshots, ii) welfare economics
lies on morals presumptions, iii) public policies are driven by moral commitments which should be linked with
economic results, and finally iv) positive and normative economics are often intertwined, so that even positive
concerns contain moral presuppositions. The some argues that, “economists who refuse to ‘dirty their hands’ with
ethical matters will not know what technical problem to investigate”.

The contribution of Amartya Sen is crucial to the introduction of ethical justifications and humanistic approach to
social sciences, economics as well as development studies. Sen is one of the central figures having an influence to
the equity issue within theories of justice. He also contributes to the ethical affairs by perceiving the expansion of
freedom as both the primary end and the principal means of development. Sen (1989) in his influential book On

22
Ethics and Economics draws a bridge across ethical matters and economic rationality. He advocates that the study
of moral philosophy is inevitably necessary to the study of economics.

It would be unfair not to underline that in contemporary economic thought, development is broadly defined as
economic growth plus social change. A strong supporter of this approach to development is the United Nations
which speaks for economic and social development. The concept of a human development paradigm is extensively
accepted. According to Haq, founder of the Human Development Report, “the basic purpose of development is to
enlarge people's choices... The objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy
long, healthy and creative lives”. In our times, as stated in the lines of the official planner of United Nations,
humanness is at the core of the discussion.

Development ethicists typically ask the following related questions:

♦ What should count as (good) development?

♦ Should we continue using the concept of development instead of, for example, 'progress,' 'transformation,'
'liberation,' or 'postdevelopment alternatives to development'?

♦ What should be a society's basic economic, political and cultural goals and strategies, and what principles should
inform their selection?

♦ What moral issues emerge in development policymaking and practice and how should they be resolved?

23
♦ How should the burdens and benefits of development be conceived and distributed?

♦Who or what should be responsible for bringing about development? A nation's government, civil society or the
market? What role—if any— should more affluent states, international institutions, and nongovernmental
associations and individuals have in the self-development of poor countries?

♦What are the most serious local, national and international impediments to good development?

♦To what extent, if any, do moral scepticism, moral relativism, national sovereignty and political realism pose a
challenge to this boundary-crossing ethical inquiry?

♦Who should decide these questions and by what methods?

In addition to accepting the importance of these questions, most development ethicists share ideas about their field
and the general parameters for ethically based development. First, development ethicists contend that development
practices and theories have ethical and value dimensions and can benefit from explicit ethical analysis and
criticism.

Second, development ethicists tend to see development as a multidisciplinary field that has both theoretical and
practical components that intertwine in various ways. Hence, development ethicists aim not merely to understand
development, conceived generally as desirable social change, but also to argue for and promote specific
conceptions of such change.

24
Third, although they may understand the terms in somewhat different ways, development ethicists are committed
to understanding and reducing human deprivation and misery in poor countries.

Fourth, a consensus exists that development projects and aid givers should seek strategies in which both human
well-being and a healthy environment jointly exist and are mutually reinforcing.

Fifth, these ethicists are aware that what is frequently called 'development'— for instance, economic growth—has
created as many problems as it has solved. 'Development' can be used both descriptively and normatively. In the
descriptive sense, 'development' is usually identified as the processes of economic growth, industrialization, and
modernization that result in a society's achieving a high (per capita) gross domestic product. So conceived, a
'developed' society may be either celebrated or criticized. In the normative sense, a developed society, ranging
from villages to national and regional societies, is one whose established institutions realize or approximate (what
the proponent believes to be) worthwhile goals—most centrally, the overcoming of economic and social
deprivation. In order to avoid confusion, when a normative sense of 'development' is meant, the noun is often
preceded by a positive adjective such as 'good' or 'ethically justified'.

A sixth area of agreement is that development ethics must be conducted at various levels of generality and
specificity. Just as development debates occur at various levels of abstraction, so development ethics should assess
(1) basic ethical principles, (2) development goals and models such as 'economic growth', 'growth with equity',
'basic needs' and, in the nineties, 'sustainable development', 'structural adjustment' and 'human development'
(United Nations Development Programme), and (3) specific institutions and strategies.

25
Seventh, most development ethicists believe their enterprise should be international in the triple sense that the
ethicists engaged in it come from many nations, including poor ones; that they are seeking to forge an international
consensus; and that this consensus emphasizes a commitment to alleviating worldwide deprivation.

Eighth, although many development ethicists contend that at least some development principles or procedures are
relevant for any poor country, most agree that development strategies must be contextually sensitive. What
constitutes the best means—for instance, state provisioning, market mechanisms, civil society and their hybrids—
will depend on a society's history and stage of social change as well as on regional and global forces.

Ninth, this flexibility concerning development models and strategies is compatible with the uniform rejection of
certain extreme. For example, most development ethicists would repudiate two models: (1) the maximization of
economic growth in a society without paying any direct attention to converting greater opulence into better human
living conditions for its members, what Sen and Jean Drèze call 'unaimed opulence', and (2) an authoritarian
egalitarianism in which physical needs are satisfied at the expense of political liberties.

Activity : Explain why and how development ethics is significant.

2.5. Goals of Development Ethics and its strategies

For development ethicists, development is perceived as a relative good which is subordinated to the meaning of
life. Each society gives answers to the fundamental inquiries of ‘what is good life’ and ‘what is good society’ in a
distinct and unique way which is chiefly determined by the value system wherein any society has adopted.

26
Goulet writes, the discipline of development ethics is the conceptual cement that binds together multiple diagnoses
of problem with their policy implications through an explicit phenomenological study of values which lays bare the
value costs of alternative courses of action. What goals ought to be posed and which strategies can be applied in
order for these goals to be achieved, depends on the value system of each society. He stresses the importance of the
dynamic of value change in determining what is to be defined as the ‘good life’ and the ‘good society’. In his
words, ‘development’ is above all a question of values. Innovation and novel behavior patterns that development
brings up usually embarrass the value system of a society. A convectional approach to development -in terms of
social scientists’ study and practices- confronts values either as aids or as obstacles to attaining its goals. In other
words, development goals are predetermined and values are used under a functional way by subordinating them.
On the contrary, development ethics looks into dynamics of value change in each society and builds its paradigm
on this idea. For development ethicists, innovation and novel behavior patterns can be good only if they can be
adjusted with the value change and the meaning of the “good life” that every society espouses.

2.5.1. Ethical Goals of development

Despite the fact that development is a relative good in terms of value issues, Goulet argues that there are three
common acceptable universal values, namely, i) life-sustenance, ii) esteem, and iii) freedom that societies and
individuals ought to investigate within a value based context of the “good life”. Theses universal accepted values
compose the ethical goals of development.

27
i) Life-sustenance refers to the nurture of life. Goulet points out that one of development’s most important goals is
to prolong men’s lives and render those men less ‘stunted’ by disease, extreme exposure to nature’s elements, and
defenselessness against enemies. The importance of life sustaining goods (e.g. food, shelter, healing or medicine) is
generally acknowledged by all societies. Because of life-sustenance as a value of universal significance, life-
sustaining indices are also used as a measurement of development.

ii) Esteem: All human beings in all societies feel the necessity for respect, dignity, honor and recognition. The
discussion involves esteem values and material prosperity, and, particularly, how esteem contends with
“development” (in a sense of high rate of well-being, economical and technological advance). The more the
material prosperity becomes the centre task of the development of a society the greater is the subordination of
esteem to material affluence. The reaction of a society to the aforementioned material approach to development
and its need for esteem can lead these societies to opposite directions, either towards “development” or towards
resistance of it. In the first case, society tries to gain esteem via “development”, while at the latter it try to protect
its profound esteem from inward “development”. Both acts seek to gain esteem. Therefore, esteem is a universal
goal whether “development” is accepted or not.

iii) Freedom is valued both from developed and non-developed societies as one of the components of the “good
life”. Development ought to free humans from all servitudes. Even though there is a vast philosophical discussion
on the term and the claim that freedom is enhanced by development is not self-evident, freedom is widely accepted
as something beneficial and desirable. The debate lies again between freedom and material well-being. In a

28
consumer society it can be accepted that the degree of freedom rises by material expansion, and thus constitutes an
increase of well-being. On the other hand, in traditional societies, the value system may adopt a completely
different confrontation over needs and wants. In any case, the point is that the matter of opinion is freedom.
Furthermore, in the discussion over freedom, a significant distinction should be made between freedom from wants
and freedom for wants. The former refers to the situation where human needs are adequately met, while the latter
to the case where the gestations of new wants are controlled and individuals possess multiplied wants.

2.5.2. Ethical Strategies of development

In development ethics, strategic principles are normative judgments which provide both the notional and practical
framework under within which development goals should be discussed and policy recommendations over those
goals ought to be formulated. Accordingly, three ethical strategic are targeted:

1) The abundance of goods in a sense that people need to have ‘enough’ in order to be more. In order to understand
the notion of this principle, it becomes necessary to take into account the ontological nature of human beings. In an
ontological sense, almost all organisms must go outside of them in order to be perfect. Only fully perfect beings
would have no needs at all. Totally imperfect beings on the other hand would be incapable of needing certain
goods. Humans are perfect (or imperfect) to such a degree that “men have needs because their existence is rich
enough to be capable of development, but poor to realize all potentialities at one time or with their resource. At any
given time man is less than he can become and what he can become depends largely on what he can have.

29
Hence, men need ‘to have enough’ goods in order to be human. This must be investigated under the notion of a
humanistic approach on how much is ‘enough’ for people in order to have a ‘good life’. There is not an absolute
answer to the above issue. The response to the aforementioned inquiry is found in the historical relation among
men and societies. Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that underdevelopment (poverty, misery, diseases, mass
famine etc) diminishes humanity. Thereby, ‘enough’ should be, at the minimum, all these goods that lead to cover
biological needs, and additionally to free part of human energy in order for it to be allocated to a wider range of life
aspects beyond covering first order needs. Altogether with the concept of ‘enough’ goods there is that of
‘superfluous’ wealth. At the same time, whereas underdevelopment hits two thirds of the globe, rich classes and
nations consume with a superfluous way by exploiting nature recourses. This can be characterized inhuman in
twofold: First, the maintenance of superfluous wealth along with underdevelopment conditions is inhuman both for
those who have it and those who not have it. Second, the hyper-consumption manner of life in “developed” nations
has distorted the way that the “good life” is perceived: “having more” (material goods, wealth) leads to the notion
of “being more” (successful, attractive, valuable). Therefore, with regard to the strategic principle of the abundance
of goods, three distinctive points are noteworthy. First, all individuals need to have ‘enough’ goods in order to
realize themselves as human beings. Second, enough is not an absolutely relative measure but it can be defined in
an objective basis. Third, both underdevelopment situations and superfluous wealth lead to dehumanization of life.

2) Universal solidarity. It concerns an ontological and philosophical issue. It can be distinctive in three points.
First, all people be in agreement that beyond differences (in nationality, race, culture, status etc) a common
‘humanness’ is present. Second, the earth as a cosmic body is governed by identical laws (physical roles) and all

30
men dwell on this planet. Humans share a common occupation of the planet. In spite of differences in geography or
climate, all humans are linked directly or indirectly with other people due to the fact of cohabitation into this
cosmic body.

The third component of the universal solidarity is derived by the all humans’ unity to destiny. In contrast, the
existing state of affairs over the notion of universalism is in the opposite direction. People have not yet realized the
need of solidarity. Controversial perspectives of development focus on narrow mercantile, strategic and ideological
interests. Under the present worldwide conditions, solidarity can be achieved only through conflict against present
rules and redefinition of the relations of power. Conflict is a prerequisite for solidarity. Here it is appropriate to
state the importance of classes’ struggle and the institutional building role to the problem of development.
Development ethicists assert that no universal solidarity exists to consolidate unfair social relations. The rebuilding
of social relations and institutions in a basis of equality is more than necessary.

3) Participation. Theories of participation possess an important issue in the study of development. In general, the
elite theory claims that decision making into a society concerns a ‘job’ for specialists in each particular field of life.
Elite theory is made in a basis of “competence” that leads to an alleged efficiency within a society. For
development ethics, participation is a matter for discussion. In Goulet’s words, participation is best conceptualized
as a kind of moral incentive enabling hitherto excluded non-elites to negotiate new packages of material incentives
benefiting them. Even though development ethicists espouse that different kinds of development require different

31
forms of participation, they argue that non-elite participation in decision-making enables people to mobilize and
gives them control over their social destiny.

Activity : explain the goals and strategies of development ethics.

2.7. The concept of the Authentic Development

This section puts forth the concept of authentic development and distinguishes it from the conventional notion of
development or otherwise to the way that for many years the developed nations deal with the problem of
underdevelopment. The adjective ‘authentic’ is used by Goulet to endow the term ‘development’ with all those
traits that development should entail in order to be sustainable and human. Authentic development refers to the
means and ends of human action, or in other words, to the vision of a better life and the way that this life can be
accessed. As it is previously mentioned, development ought to respond to long-standing philosophical inquiries
concerning the meaning of the good life, the foundation of justice in society and within societies, and the stance of
human individual and societies towards nature. Providing satisfactory conceptual and institutional answers to these
three questions is what constitutes authentic development.

For all people and any society in the world, authentic development ought to cover at least three objective aims that
correspond to the aforementioned goals of development: a) to pursue more and better life-sustaining goods for all
human beings, b) to create and improve the conditions that nurture the sense of esteem of individuals and societies,
and c) to release humans from all forms of servitude (to nature, to others people, to institutions, to beliefs).

32
Any concept of human fulfillment is highly relative and as Goulet points out, development can be examined as a
dialectical process. Development goals are usually interactive and no range exists among life protection, esteem
and freedom. The essential point is that authentic development should not judge the abovementioned goals (as is
conventionally the case) but these goals must become the criteria which authentic development itself must be
judged. In this mode, grading a nation high economic growth does not mean that it has followed an authentic
development pattern. No authentic development can be achieved if massive consumption leads societies to an
entirely material way of living emphasizing the notion of ‘have’ instead of ‘be’; if structural relations between
nations and within them (among classes and individuals) are competitive and there is not equal distribution of
development proceeds; if the exploitation of material resources leads to the destruction of ecological balance, if
technological advantages are used to abolish freedom.

Authentic development, namely sustainability and human development is at the center of discussion for the last
decades. In an effort to define authentic development, it is agreed that any definition of development should take
into account at least the following six conceptual propositions:

1) Economic component, related with wealth, material life conditions (amenities), and their equal distribution of
them.

2) Social ingredient, connected with social goods as health, housing, education, employment etc.

3) Political dimension, in a sense of the protection of human rights and political freedom.

33
4) Cultural elements, with accord to the idea that cultures cultivate people’s identity and self-esteem.

5) Ecological soundness, to promote a type of development that respects natural resources and forces for the
restoration of the environment.

6) System of meaning, which refers to the way that a society perceives beliefs, symbols and values concerning the
historical process and the meaning of life.

The aforementioned conceptual elements might reflect a consensus on what Goulet calls authentic development.
Important element not fully described within the above analysis relate to issues of ethical value relativity and
popular participation where overlap the notion of development.

With respect to the first issue, societal value systems are threatened by changes and social change is one of the
main components of development. If we accept that development affects values of society and vice versa, the
concept of ‘existence rationality’ should be investigated. However, what does this strange phrase mean?

According to Goulet, existence rationality defined as the process by which a society devices a conscious strategy
for obtaining its goals, given its ability to process information and the constrains weighting upon it. In other words,
existence rationality is considered to be the value system that exists in any society and determines the course of
action undertaken to serve societal aims. The core value of existence rationality is to be concerned of the provision
of those ingredients that ensure what any society defines as the good life. Thus, any change should be integrated in
the principle of existence rationality determined by each society.

34
Inasmuch as participation is one of the strategic principles of development as it is asserted in a former section, it is
an essential constituent of authentic development. Elite problem-solvers (political elite, government officials,
policy makers, specialists, executives of intergovernmental organization and so on) usually view development as a
matter for competence. In contradiction to the conventional approach to issues of decision-making, authentic
development offers a pluralistic alternative to it. The philosopher Ivan Illich underlines Participation is
deprofessionalization in all domains of life so as to make ordinary people responsible for their own well-being.

For ethicists, participation is perceived in the sense that common people are involved not only as receivers of the
privileges of development but also as agents of their destiny, building their model of development. To what extent
populace participation should takes place is a matter for discussion, what is certain is that via participation at least
three vital actions are performed: participation (i) offers to non-elites the ability to state goals independently of
their social position, (ii) abolishes political patron, in a sense that ordinary people themselves become problem-
solvers in their social environment, and (iii) launches individual and social formations to escape of the rationale of
‘do-it-yourself’ problems of micro level gaining access the macro arena of decision-making.

Activity : what is authentic development? Do you think development is mere material well being? Why not?
Activity : to what extent do you think the concept of development ethics is significant for your country’s
sustainable development?

35
Conclusion

The present analysis proposes an ethical view of development, introducing the readers/students to the fundamental
principles of the development ethics paradigm. As mentioned previously, development ethics are related to an
ethical reflection on the ends and means of any developmental endeavor. Ethics incorporates with “the value
dynamisms of the instruments utilized by development agents” thus becoming a “means of the means”. Any
instrumental action (an economic policy for instance) should be tested under an ethical deliberation taking into
account the aforesaid ethical goals of life-sustenance, esteem and freedom. Development ethics renders to people
and societies the way to be critically aware of the moral content of their choices. By the formulation of particular
ethical strategies –abundance of goods, universal solidarity and participation - development ethicists show a way
to find a road based on the principles of an authentic (human and sustainable) development. Through this process
development ethics offers the ideal of hope; preserving hope “as the possibility of creating new possibilities”.

Development ethics’ essential task is ‘human ascent’ to all relevant aspects of life and authentic development
should be perceived as the means and the end in this course of action.

LESSON TWO: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

What is “sustainable development”?

When the concept “sustainable development” was first articulated in the Brundtland Report, the emphasis was clearly
anthropocentric. In face of increasing evidence that planetary systems vital to life-support were under strain, the concept of sustainable

36
development is constructed in the report to encourage certain globally coordinated directions and types of economic and social
development. The report defines “sustainable development” in the following way:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:

 the concept of “needs”, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and

 the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present
and future needs.

Thus the goals of economic and social development must be defined in terms of sustainability in all countries—developed or
developing, market-oriented or centrally planned. Interpretations will vary, but must share certain general features and must flow from
a consensus on the basic concept of sustainable development and on a broad strategic framework for achieving it.

The report goes on to argue that “the industrial world has already used much of the planet’s ecological capital. This inequality is the
planet’s main ‘environmental’ problem; it is also its main ‘development’ problem” (WCED 1987). In the concept of sustainable
development the report combines the resource economist’s notion of “sustainable yield” with the recognition that developing countries
of the world are entitled to economic growth and prosperity. The notion of sustainable yield involves thinking of forests, rivers, oceans
and other ecosystems, including the natural species living in them, as a stock of “ecological capital” from which all kinds of goods and
services flow. Provided the flow of such goods and services does not reduce the capacity of the capital itself to maintain its
productivity, the use of the systems in question is regarded as sustainable. Thus, the report argues that “maximum sustainable yield
must be defined after taking into account system-wide effects of exploitation” of ecological capital (WCED 1987).

37
Sustainable development is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of
technological development and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human
needs and aspiration.

For sustainable development to be meaningful, over consumption has to be brought under control. In addition, in a free market
economy, the private sector may not bother to conserve nature. For the sake of profit, it may destroy forests, overuse mineral
resources, or pollute air and water. This sector may not take into account social costs or benefits.
Activity 2
Is the definition of sustainable development anthropocentric? Explain how it is a human centered one.
Discussion of sustainable development frequently focuses on forms of resource management, with an emphasis on social justice and
on the well-being of future generation of human beings. Indeed, the most commonly cited definition of sustainable development is
anthropocentric. But sustainable development needs to take account of goods other than human well-being and the resource that
conduce thereto. Thus sustainable development can move beyond the anthropocentric to incorporate a broader understanding of
environmental ethics.
Sustainability requires a rare balance between the three sets of goals, namely, environmental, economic and social ones. Once
environmental/ecological sustainability has been achieved, then it is possible to attain economic sustainability. If this condition is
maintained then social stability can be attained. For sustainable development to be meaningful, over consumption has to be brought
under control.
Sustainable development has economic, social, environmental and ethical dimensions. From an economic perspective, a resource is
efficiently allocated and optimally utilized if it is put to the use that generates the highest possible returns. In free enterprise
economies, the first two causes of poverty and economic malaise may be overcome by setting in place a broad legal as well as
effective and quality infrastructural framework within which individuals and actors could pursue their self interest. The required legal
framework may consist of laws and security rules that promote sound investment, and access to financial, labour and land transactions.

38
To be really effective, the law must remove all manner of discrimination with respect to opportunities regarding education,
investments, health services, land resources, capital and employment.
Socially, equitable distribution of the incomes on the other hand may be achieved through mechanisms and social benefits like income
supports, unemployment benefits and housing, free or discounted education, health and transportation services.
From an environmental perspective, economic and social goals have to be pursued in ways that will cause the least damage to the
quality of the environment and limit the exhaustion of irreplaceable resources.
Sustainable development is more than environmental action.

The principles in relation to sustainable development that are particularly relevant to the delivery of environmental health services are:

1. Human beings are at the center of concern for sustainable development.

2. To achieve sustainable development, environmental protection must remain as integral part of the developmental process.

3. Equity in the delivery of services is an essential part of sustainable development.

4. Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens at all levels.

5. Effective environmental legislation should be enacted.

6. Both the precautionary approach and environmental impact assessment should be widely applied as tools in competent
decision making.

So, there is no longer any justification for the claim often made by the vested interest group that sustainable development is such an
all-embracing term that it is completely meaningless.

39
 CHAPTER THREE: ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

Introduction

Ethics is one of the fields of philosophy which is concerned with morality. And environmental ethics is a branch of applied ethics that
deals with moral principles that try to define our responsibility towards the environment. This part of lesson deals with what is ethics
in general and environmental ethics in particular.

What is environmental ethics?

Environmental ethics is a relatively new field of philosophical ethics concerned with describing the values carried by the non-human
natural world and prescribing an appropriate ethical response to ensure preservation or restoration of those values. This often urgent
concern arises especially in view of threat to nature posed largely by humans. These threats are both to other humans and to non-
humans, placing in jeopardy the communities of life on earth.

In a nutshell, environmental ethics is the discipline in philosophy that studies the moral relationship of human beings to, and also the
value and moral status of, the environment and its nonhuman contents.

Environmental ethics is concerned with moral principles that try to define our responsibilities towards the environment.

What is environment?

Our environment is broadly defined as our surroundings or, as Einstein put it: ‘Everything that isn’t me.’ In this broadest of
definitions, you are part of my environment and I am part of yours. However when the word is used, as it is so often today, in relation
to popular concern, it is the natural world that is in the mind of the speaker – the loss of the rain forest, the effect of acid rain on rivers
or lakes, or the all-pervading effect of global warming.

When was environmental ethics emerged? What were the reasons that forced its emergence? What are the warning signs of
environmental crisis?

The Early Development of Environmental Ethics

40
While one can trace roots in the field back much further, explicitly and implicitly in the works of philosophers and non-philosophers
alike, the first article in philosophy journals specifically on environmental topics, the first books, the first conferences and the first
classes in colleges and universities all began in the early 1970s. This was no coincidence. The environmental movement was then
transforming from its earlier phase consisting mainly in practical resource conservation initiatives, such as the creation of the national
park system, to a much more active political and social force in its own right.

The overriding concern was that fundamental changes were needed in how understood the value of nature and how we recognize
human societies accordingly. Various figures in this movement courted controversy by diagnosing the environmental crisis in the long
prevailing Western, Enlightenment, humanist, scientific, industrial, technological mindsets, and found them all wrong-headed and
misdirected. The symptoms were a host of environmental problems that we were then only beginning to understand: deforestation, soil
loss, water and air pollution, desertification, loss of species habitat, loss of biodiversity, suburban sprawl, escalating population,
escalating consumption, global warming, and endless other concerns.

The following works of different scholars have contributed for the development of environmental ethics which emphasizes on the
questioning and rethinking of the relationship of human beings with the natural environment.

Among the accessible work that drew attention to a sense of crisis was Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1963), which consisted of
detailing how pesticides such as DDT, aldrin and deildrin concentrated through the food web. It reveals the toll that agricultural
pesticides were having on animals, plants, ecosystems, and human health. Commercial farming practices aimed at maximizing crop
yields and profits, Carson speculates, are capable of impacting simultaneously on environmental and public health.

On the other hand, historian Lynn White jr., in a much-cited essay published in 1967 on the historical roots of the environmental
crisis, argues that the main strands of Judeo-Christian thinking had encouraged the overexploitation of nature by maintaining the
superiority of humans over all other forms of life on earth, and by depicting all of nature as created for the use of humans. Central to

41
the rationale for his thesis were the works of the Church Fathers and The Bible itself, supporting the anthropocentric perspective that
humans are the only things that matter on Earth. Consequently, they may utilize and consume everything else to their advantage
without any injustice. For example, Genesis 1:27-8 states: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
and subdue it: and have dominion over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the
earth.” Likewise, Thomas Aquinas (Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk. 3, Pt 2, Ch 112) argued that nonhuman animals are “ordered to man's
use”. According to White, the Judeo-Christian idea that humans are created in the image of the transcendent supernatural God, who is
radically separate from nature, also by extension radically separates humans themselves from nature. This ideology further opened the
way for untrammelled exploitation of nature. Modern Western science itself, White argues, was “cast in the matrix of Christian
theology” so that it too inherited the “orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature”. Clearly, without technology and science, the
environmental extremes to which we are now exposed would probably not be realized. White's thesis, however, is that given the
modern form of science and technology, Judeo-Christianity itself provides the original deep-seated drive to unlimited exploitation of
nature. Nevertheless, White argued that some minority traditions within Christianity (e.g., the views of St. Francis) might provide an
antidote to the “arrogance” of a mainstream tradition steeped in anthropocentrism.

Around the same time, the Stanford ecologist, Paul Ehrlich, published The Population Bomb (1968), warning that the growth of
human population threatened the viability of planetary life-support systems. The sense of environmental crisis stimulated by those and
other popular works was intensified by NASA's production and wide dissemination of a particularly potent image of earth from space
taken at Christmas 1968 and featured in the Scientific American in September 1970. Here, plain to see, was a living, shining planet
voyaging through space and shared by all of humanity, a precious vessel vulnerable to pollution and to the overuse of its limited
capacities.

42
The call for a “basic change of values” in connection to the environment (a call that could be interpreted in terms of either
instrumental or intrinsic values) reflected a need for the development of environmental ethics as a new sub-discipline of philosophy.

The new field emerged almost simultaneously in three countries -- the United States, Australia, and Norway. In the first two of these
countries, direction and inspiration largely came from the earlier twentieth century American literature of the environment. For
instance, the Scottish emigrant John Muir (founder of the Sierra Club and “father of American conservation”) and subsequently the
forester Aldo Leopold had advocated an appreciation and conservation of things “natural, wild and free”. Their concerns were
motivated by a combination of ethical and aesthetic responses to nature as well as a rejection of crudely economic approaches to the
value of natural objects.

The following statements are Leopold’s assertions concerning the environment: “That land is a community… and that land is to be
loved and respected.” “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is
wrong when it tends otherwise.”

The land ethic sketched by Leopold, attempting to extend our moral concern to cover the natural environment and its nonhuman
contents, was drawn on explicitly by the Australian philosopher Richard Routley (later Sylvan). According to Routley, the
anthropocentrism imbedded in what he called the “dominant western view”, or “the western superethic”, is in effect “human
chauvinism”. This view, he argued, is just another form of class chauvinism, which is simply based on blind class “loyalty” or
prejudice, and unjustifiably discriminates against those outside the privileged class. Furthermore, in his “last man” (and “last people”)
arguments, Routley asked us to imagine the hypothetical situation in which the last person, surviving a world catastrophe, acted to
ensure the elimination of all other living things and the destruction of all the landscapes after his demise. From the human-chauvinistic
(or absolutely anthropocentric) perspective, the last person would do nothing morally wrong, since his or her destructive act in
question would not cause any damage to the interest and well-being of humans, who would by then have disappeared. Nevertheless,

43
Routley points out that there is a moral intuition that the imagined last act would be morally wrong. An explanation for this judgment,
he argued, is that those nonhuman objects in the environment, whose destruction is ensured by the last person, have intrinsic value, a
kind of value independent of their usefulness for humans. From his critique, Routley concluded that the main approaches in traditional
western moral thinking were unable to allow the recognition that natural things have intrinsic value, and that the tradition required
overhaul of a significant kind.

Leopold's idea that the “land” as a whole is an object of our moral concern also stimulated writers to argue for certain moral
obligations toward ecological wholes, such as species, communities, and ecosystems, not just their individual constituents. The U.S.-
based theologian and environmental philosopher Holmes Rolston III, for instance, argued that species protection was a moral duty. It
would be wrong, he maintained, to eliminate a rare butterfly species simply to increase the monetary value of specimens already held
by collectors. Like Routley's “last man” arguments, Rolston's example is meant to draw attention to a kind of action that seems
morally dubious and yet is not clearly ruled out or condemned by traditional anthropocentric ethical views. Species, Rolston went on
to argue, are intrinsically valuable and are usually more valuable than individual specimens, since the loss of a species is a loss of
genetic possibilities and the deliberate destruction of a species would show disrespect for the very biological processes which make
possible the emergence of individual living things. Natural processes deserve respect, according to Rolston's quasi-religious
perspective, because they constitute a nature (or God) which is itself intrinsically valuable (or sacred).

Meanwhile, the work of Christopher Stone (a professor of law at the University of Southern California) had become widely discussed.
Stone proposed that trees and other natural objects should have at least the same standing in law as corporations. This suggestion was
inspired by a particular case in which the Sierra Club had mounted a challenge against the permit granted by the U.S. Forest Service to
Walt Disney Enterprises for surveys preparatory to the development of the Mineral King Valley, which was at the time a relatively
remote game refuge, but not designated as a national park or protected wilderness area. The Disney proposal was to develop a major
resort complex serving 14000 visitors daily to be accessed by a purpose-built highway through Sequoia National Park. The Sierra

44
Club, as a body with a general concern for wilderness conservation, challenged the development on the grounds that the valley should
be kept in its original state for its own sake.

Stone reasoned that if trees, forests and mountains could be given standing in law then they could be represented in their own right in
the courts by groups such as the Sierra Club. Moreover, like any other legal person, these natural things could become beneficiaries of
compensation if it could be shown that they had suffered compensatable injury through human activity.

Reacting to Stone's proposal, Joel Feinberg (1974) raised a serious problem. Only items that have interests, Feinberg argued, can be
regarded as having legal standing and, likewise, moral standing. For, it is interests which are capable of being represented in legal
proceedings and moral debates. This same point would also seem to apply to political debates. For instance, the movement for “animal
liberation”, which also emerged strongly in the 1970s, can be thought of as a political movement aimed at representing the previously
neglected interests of some animals. Granted that some animals have interests that can be represented in this way, would it also make
sense to speak of trees, forests, rivers, barnacles, or termites as having interests of a morally relevant kind? This issue was hotly
contested in the years that followed. Meanwhile, John Passmore argued, like White, that the Judeo-Christian tradition of thought about
nature, despite being predominantly “despotic”, contained resources for regarding humans as “stewards” or “perfectors” of God's
creation. Skeptical of the prospects for any radically new ethic, Passmore cautioned that traditions of thought could not be abruptly
overhauled. Any change in attitudes to our natural surroundings which stood the chance of widespread acceptance, he argued, would
have to resonate and have some continuities with the very tradition which had legitimized our destructive practices. In sum, then,
Leopold's land ethic, the historical analyses of White and Passmore, the pioneering work of Routley, Stone and Rolston, and the
warnings of scientists, had by the late 1970s focused the attention of philosophers and political theorists firmly on the environment.

The confluences of ethical, political and legal debates about the environment, the emergence of philosophies to underpin animal rights
activism and the puzzles over whether an environmental ethic would be something new rather than a modification or extension of

45
existing ethical theories were reflected in wider social and political movements. The rise of environmental or “green” parties in
Europe in the 1980s was accompanied by almost immediate schisms between groups known as “realists” versus “fundamentalists”.
The “realists” stood for reform environmentalism, working with business and government to soften the impact of pollution and
resource depletion especially on fragile ecosystems or endangered species. The “fundies” argued for radical change, the setting of
stringent new priorities, and even the overthrow of capitalism and liberal individualism, which were taken as the major ideological
causes of anthropogenic environmental devastation.

Underlying these political disagreements was the distinction between “shallow” and “deep” environmental movements, a distinction
introduced in the early 1970s by another major influence on contemporary environmental ethics, the Norwegian philosopher and
climber Arne Næss. Since the work of Næss has been significant in environmental politics, the discussion of his position is given in a
separate section below.

Since this time, environmental ethics has been most concerned with the moral grounds for protecting the welfare of non-human
animals, the moral foundations for laws protecting endangered species, and the ethical bases for preserving and restoring degraded
environments. The principal question underlying such research was how values carried by nature could best be described, often asking
whether nature is directly morally considerable in itself, rather than only indirectly morally considerable because it is appreciated or
needed by humans.

Is nature directly morally considerable in itself? Or is nature only indirectly morally considerable? Discuss it.

Nature might be indirectly morally considerable because it is the source of things that humans need, such as natural resources, used to
provide the foundations for building and sustaining human communities. As such, we might consider it unfair if one human
community has greater access to a share of those resources thought to be held in common – air, water, soil, etc. – over another human
community. In contrast, nature might be directly morally considerable if it possesses some kind of value (for example, some kind of
value in and of itself not dependent on its value to anything or anyone else) which could further be demonstrated as the sort of value
that demanded that we respect or protect it. If nature is the sort of thing that is directly morally considerable (as many ethical theories

46
would claim humans are) then our duties, for example, to preserve whooping cranes and their habitats would not depend only on
describing some value that the cranes have for humans.

The Challenge of Environmental Ethics

Introduction

One of the major challenges that environmental ethics faces is anthropocentrism. Environmental ethics raise different moral questions
toward human-centeredness that consider nature as a mere means to achieve human goals. This lesson focuses on issues raised by
environmental ethics, its challenges and responses for anthropocentrism.

How does environmental ethics challenge traditional anthropocentrism? And what are the concerns of environmental ethics?

Suppose that putting out natural fires, culling feral animals or destroying some individual members of overpopulated indigenous
species is necessary for the protection of the integrity of a certain ecosystem. Will these actions be morally permissible or even
required? Is it morally acceptable for farmers in non-industrial countries to practice slash and burn techniques to clear areas for
agriculture? Consider a mining company which has performed open pit mining in some previously unspoiled area. Does the company
have a moral obligation to restore the landform and surface ecology? And what is the value of a humanly restored environment
compared with the originally natural environment? It is often said to be morally wrong for human beings to pollute and destroy parts
of the natural environment and to consume a huge proportion of the planet's natural resources. If that is wrong, is it simply because a
sustainable environment is essential to (present and future) human well-being? Or is such behaviour also wrong because the natural
environment and/or its various contents have certain values in their own right so that these values ought to be respected and protected
in any case? These are among the questions investigated by environmental ethics. Some of them are specific questions faced by
individuals in particular circumstances, while others are more global questions faced by groups and communities. Yet others are more
abstract questions concerning the value and moral standing of the natural environment and its nonhuman components

What is the difference between instrumental value and intrinsic value? Explain through example.

In the literature on environmental ethics the distinction between instrumental value and intrinsic value (meaning “non-instrumental
value”) has been of considerable importance. The former is the value of things as means to further some other ends, whereas the latter
is the value of things as ends in themselves regardless of whether they are also useful as means to other ends. For instance, certain

47
fruits have instrumental value for bats who feed on them, since feeding on the fruits is a means to survival for the bats. However, it is
not widely agreed that fruits have value as ends in themselves. We can likewise think of a person who teaches others as having
instrumental value for those who want to acquire knowledge. Yet, in addition to any such value, it is normally said that a person, as a
person, has intrinsic value, i.e., value in his or her own right independently of his or her prospects for serving the ends of others. For
another example, a certain wild plant may have instrumental value because it provides the ingredients for some medicine or as an
aesthetic object for human observers. But if the plant also has some value in itself independently of its prospects for furthering some
other ends such as human health, or the pleasure from aesthetic experience, then the plant also has intrinsic value. Because the
intrinsically valuable is that which is good as an end in itself, it is commonly agreed that something's possession of intrinsic value
generates a prima facie direct moral duty on the part of moral agents to protect it or at least refrain from damaging it.

What is the difference between anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric approach to the environment? Explain the distinction
between anthropocentric in strong sense and weak /broad sense.

Many traditional western ethical perspectives, however, are anthropocentric or human-centered in that either they assign intrinsic
value to human beings alone (i.e., what we might call anthropocentric in a strong sense) or they assign a significantly greater amount
of intrinsic value to human beings than to any nonhuman things such that the protection or promotion of human interests or well-being
at the expense of nonhuman things turns out to be nearly always justified (i.e., what we might call anthropocentric in a weak sense).
For example, Aristotle (Politics, Bk. 1, Ch. 8) maintains that “nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man” and that the
value of nonhuman things in nature is merely instrumental. Generally, anthropocentric positions find it problematic to articulate what
is wrong with the cruel treatment of nonhuman animals, except to the extent that such treatment may lead to bad consequences for
human beings. Immanuel Kant (“Duties to Animals and Spirits”, in Lectures on Ethics), for instance, suggests that cruelty towards a
dog might encourage a person to develop a character which would be desensitized to cruelty towards humans. From this standpoint,
cruelty towards nonhuman animals would be instrumentally, rather than intrinsically, wrong. Likewise, anthropocentrism often
recognizes some non-intrinsic wrongness of anthropogenic (i.e. human-caused) environmental devastation. Such destruction might
damage the well-being of human beings now and in the future, since our well-being is essentially dependent on a sustainable
environment.

Anthropocentrism is the view that prioritizes those attitudes values or practices that give “exclusive or arbitrarily preferential
consideration to human interests as opposed to the interest of other beings,” or, speaking generally, the environment.

48
DISCUSSION: How do traditional people understand values carried by nature? Does their indigenous knowledge contribute for the
conservation of the environment? Collect data and analyze critically whether nature is directly morally considerable in itself or
indirectly morally considerable by the local/traditional communities. Since you might be from different ethnic backgrounds, refer to
your actual situation/ specific tradition.

When environmental ethics emerged as a new sub-discipline of philosophy in the early 1970s, it did so by posing a challenge to
traditional anthropocentrism. In the first place, it questioned the assumed moral superiority of human beings to members of other
species on earth. In the second place, it investigated the possibility of rational arguments for assigning intrinsic value to the natural
environment and its nonhuman contents.

It should be noted, however, that some theorists working in the field see no need to develop new, non-anthropocentric theories.
Instead, they advocate what may be called enlightened anthropocentrism (or, perhaps more appropriately called, prudential
anthropocentrism).

What is an enlightened anthropocentrism? What is the difference between enlightened anthropocentrism and non anthropocentric
theories?

Briefly, enlightened anthropocentrism is the view that all the moral duties we have towards the environment are derived from our
direct duties to its human inhabitants. The practical purpose of environmental ethics, they maintain, is to provide moral grounds for
social policies aimed at protecting the earth's environment and remedying environmental degradation. Enlightened anthropocentrism,
they argue, is sufficient for that practical purpose, and perhaps even more effective in delivering pragmatic outcomes, in terms of
policy-making, than non-anthropocentric theories given the theoretical burden on the latter to provide sound arguments for its more
radical view that the nonhuman environment has intrinsic value. Furthermore, some prudential anthropocentrists may hold what might
be called cynical anthropocentrism, which says that we have a higher-level anthropocentric reason to be non-anthropocentric in our
day-to-day thinking. Suppose that a day-to-day non-anthropocentrist tends to act more benignly towards the nonhuman environment
on which human well-being depends. This would provide reason for encouraging non-anthropocentric thinking, even to those who
find the idea of non-anthropocentric intrinsic value hard to swallow. In order for such a strategy to be effective one may need to hide
one's cynical anthropocentrism from others and even from oneself.

2.2. Responses to Mainstream Environmental Ethics

There are a number of important responses to the more mainstream environmental ethics approaches. For instance, anthropocentric or
human-centered approaches maintain that the non-human natural world is best considered ethically in terms of its instrumental values

49
to humans. For individualist consequentialist approaches, the unit of ethical concern is always the individual organism rather than, for
instance, the ecosystem or the species. Here we want to consider two broad schools of thought – deep ecology and feminism/ eco-
feminism as responses to mainstream environmental ethics.

2.2.1. Deep Ecology

What is the difference between deep ecology and shallow ecology? What is biospheric egalitarianism?

“Deep ecology” was born in Scandinavia, the result of discussions between Næss and his colleagues Sigmund Kvaløy and Nils
Faarlund. All three shared a passion for the great mountains. On a visit to the Himalayas, they became impressed with aspects of
“Sherpa culture” particularly when they found that their Sherpa guides regarded certain mountains as sacred and accordingly would
not venture onto them. Subsequently, Næss formulated a position which extended the reverence the three Norwegians and the Sherpas
felt for mountains to other natural things in general.

The “shallow ecology movement”, as Næss calls it, is the “fight against pollution and resource depletion”, the central objective of
which is “the health and affluence of people in the developed countries.” The “deep ecology movement”, in contrast, endorses
“biospheric egalitarianism”, the view that all living things are alike in having value in their own right, independent of their usefulness
to others. The deep ecologist respects this intrinsic value, taking care, for example, when walking on the mountainside not to cause
unnecessary damage to the plants.

The basic intuition of biocentric equality is that all things in the biosphere have an equal right to live and blossom and to reach their
own individual forms of unfolding and self-realization within the larger Self-realization. In other words, all organisms and entities in
the ecosphere, as part of the interrelated whole, are equal in intrinsic worth.

Explain the difference between biocentric egalitarianism and atomistic individualism. What is relationalism?

Inspired by Spinoza's metaphysics, another key feature of Næss's deep ecology is the rejection of atomistic individualism. The idea
that a human being is such an individual possessing a separate essence, Næss argues, radically separates the human self from the rest
of the world. To make such a separation not only leads to selfishness towards other people, but also induces human selfishness

50
towards nature. As a counter to egoism at both the individual and species level, Næss proposes the adoption of an alternative relational
“total-field image” of the world. According to this relationalism, organisms (human or otherwise) are best understood as “knots” in the
biospherical net. The identity of a living thing is essentially constituted by its relations to other things in the world, especially its
ecological relations to other living things. If people conceptualise themselves and the world in relational terms, the deep ecologists
argue, then people will take better care of nature and the world in general.

The following table summarizes the contrast between the dominant worldview and deep ecology

Dominant Worldview Deep Ecology

Dominance over nature Harmony with nature
Natural environment as resource for humans All nature has intrinsic worth/ biospecies
equality
Material /economic growth for growing Elegantly simple material needs(material
human population goals serving the larger goal of self-
realization)
Belief in ample resource reserves Earth supplies limited
High technological progress and solutions Appropriate technology; non dominating
science
National/centralized comm- unity Minority tradition/bioregion
Consumerism Doing with enough/recycling
Summery

The Eight Platform Principles of the Deep Ecology Movement

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value,
inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.

2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realizations of these values & are also values in themselves.

3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.

51
4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of human population. The flourishing of
nonhuman life requires such a decrease.

5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting
state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.

7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an
increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.

8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation to directly or indirectly try to implement the necessary changes.

2.2.2. Ecofeminism/Feminism and the Environment

How does feminism describe what are often called the “twin oppressions” of women and nature? What is the contribution of feminism
to environmental protection?

Broadly speaking, a feminist issue is any that contributes in some way to understanding the oppression of women. Feminist theories
attempt to analyze women's oppression, its causes and consequences, and suggest strategies and directions for women's liberation. By
the mid 1970s, feminist writers had raised the issue of whether patriarchal modes of thinking encouraged not only widespread
inferiorizing and colonizing of women, but also of people of colour, animals and nature. Sheila Collins, for instance, argued that male-
dominated culture or patriarchy is supported by four interlocking pillars: sexism, racism, class exploitation, and ecological destruction.

Ecofeminists agree that the domination of nature by human beings comes from a patriarchal world view, the same world view that
justifies the domination of women. Because both dominations come from the same world view, the movement to stop devaluing
nature should include a movement against the domination of women, i.e., should incorporate a feminist view.

52
Emphasizing the importance of feminism to the environmental movement and various other liberation movements, some writers, such
as Ynestra King, argue that the domination of women by men is historically the original form of domination in human society, from
which all other hierarchies -- of rank, class, and political power -- flow. For instance, human exploitation of nature may be seen as a
manifestation and extension of the oppression of women, in that it is the result of associating nature with the female, which had been
already inferiorized and oppressed by the male-dominating culture. But within the plurality of feminist positions, other writers, such as
Val Plumwood, understand the oppression of women as only one of the many parallel forms of oppression sharing and supported by a
common ideological structure, in which one party (the colonizer, whether male, white or human) uses a number of conceptual and
rhetorical devices to privilege its interests over that of the other party (the colonized: whether female, people of colour, or animals).
Facilitated by a common structure, seemingly diverse forms of oppression can mutually reinforce each other.

How does dualistic way of thinking contribute for the destruction of environment?

Not all feminist theorists would call that common underlying oppressive structure “androcentric” or “patriarchal”. But it is generally
agreed that core features of the structure include “dualism”, hierarchical thinking, and the “logic of domination”, which are typical of,
if not essential to, male-chauvinism. These patterns of thinking and conceptualizing the world, many feminist theorists argue, also
nourish and sustain other forms of chauvinism, including, human-chauvinism (i.e., anthropocentrism), which is responsible for much
human exploitation of, and destructiveness towards, nature. The dualistic way of thinking, for instance, sees the world in polar
opposite terms, such as male/female, masculinity/femininity, reason/emotion, freedom/necessity, active/passive, mind/body,
pure/soiled, white/coloured, civilized/primitive, transcendent/immanent, human/animal, culture/nature. Furthermore, under dualism all
the first items in these contrasting pairs are assimilated with each other, and all the second items are likewise linked with each other.
For example, the male is seen to be associated with the rational, active, creative, Cartesian human mind, and civilized, orderly,
transcendent culture; whereas the female is regarded as tied to the emotional, passive, determined animal body, and primitive,
disorderly, immanent nature. These interlocking dualisms are not just descriptive dichotomies, according to the feminists, but involve
a prescriptive privileging of one side of the opposed items over the other. Dualism confers superiority to everything on the male side,
but inferiority to everything on the female side. The “logic of domination” then dictates that those on the superior side (e.g., men,
rational beings, humans) are morally entitled to dominate and utilize those on the inferior side (e.g., women, beings lacking in
rationality, nonhumans) as mere means.

Feminism represents a radical challenge for environmental thinking, politics, and traditional social ethical perspectives. It promises to
link environmental questions with wider social problems concerning various kinds of discrimination and exploitation, and
fundamental investigations of human psychology. However, whether there are conceptual, causal or merely contingent connections
among the different forms of oppression and liberation remains a contested issue. The term “ecofeminism” (first coined by Françoise
d'Eaubonne in 1974) or “ecological feminism” was for a time generally applied to any view that combines environmental advocacy

53
with feminist analysis. However, because of the varieties of, and disagreements among, feminist theories, the label may be too wide to
be informative and has generally fallen from use.

Summery

The theses of Eco-Feminism:

1. The immediate cause of present-day woes and future threats is the patriarchal system, founded upon the appropriation of
procreation and fertility, the mental and cultural structures of which have persisted across all successive social and economic domains.

2. The two principal factors in the rapid expansion of patriarchy, exhaustion of resources and global population growth, are the distant
yet direct causes of the present-day ecological catastrophe.

3. The battle of the sexes merely reflects man’s battle against himself, which in the past, and still today, translates to the battle of the
classes.

4. The failure of socialist revolutions comes from their economic failure and refusal to consider anything other than the “battle of the
classes” without examining the foundations of hierarchy and human exploitation: sexism.

5. Capital, now in the imperialist stage, will only disappear with an ecological solution of production (and of consumption) which will
constitute the only possible elimination of the outdated structures of dominance, aggressiveness, competitiveness, and absolutism in
order to replace them with those of cooperation and equality between individuals (thus between sexes), and of the species with the
environment.

Is there a global environmental crisis?

What are the crises of environment? Have you ever realized such environmental crisis in your area?

The world is heading for an environmental disaster, and like the three wise monkeys, we do not want to see hear or talk about it. What
is even worse, we sometimes do talk about it, and then go about our business as if the environment and our lives are quite separate.
Many environmental problems arise from the deliberate or inadvertent abuse, misuse, and overuse of natural resources by human
beings. Land, water, energy resources air and space have all been adversely affected by human intervention.

Do you think surely nature will take care of these problems over time?

54
The earth has exited for over five billion years, humanity for three to five million years and civilization for about 10,000 years. They
have survived many crises and cataclysms. Looking back over the centuries, nature seems to have always absorbed disturbances and
maintained a balance. Thousands of species have survived over a long period of time and, consequently, may be expected to continue
to exist forever.
Will we not survive the current environmental crisis too?
We may be correct in expecting the Earth and many species to survive, but we may be wrong in assuming that humanity will also
continue to exist along with nature in the same way. Why? The reason is that there is something different happening now.
What is different about the current scene?
In the past changes were always slow, but this is no longer true. Human activity has drastically increased the pace at which changes in
the environment are taking place.
Four mega phenomena or spikes have been occurring with profound implications for life on earth. The four quantities that have been
growing exponentially are:
1. Concentration of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere
2. The number of biological species becoming extinct every year.
3. Production and consumption of goods and services
4. The size of the human population
A remarkable fact is that, in each case the curve was plat over centuries until the spike began in recent times. What makes matters
worse is that the spikes in the four quantities are interconnected, each amplifying the other three. Let us take a closer look at these
phenomena.
Are carbon dioxide emissions excessive?

Carbon dioxide, Co2 is a colorless non-toxic gas naturally present in the air and produced by the
respiration of living organisms. It is also produced by the burning of fossil fuels and is an important greenhouse gas

55
Concentration of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere started increasing exponentially from 1800 onward, and the trend continues
unabated. The main source of these emissions is the burnings of fossil fuels like coal and oil.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of scientists from 100 countries, concluded in 1995 that human-
induced global warming was occurring rapidly, which lead to many natural disasters. It advocated immediate cutbacks in carbon
dioxide emissions. The scientists could only propose policy changes; it was up to various governments to implement them. However,
many industrialized countries are against any such actions that will affect economic growth and involve changes in lifestyle.
One of human impacts on the environment is basically related to pollution. It may be defined as ‘the introduction by man into the
environment of substances or energy liable to cause hazards to human health, harm to living resources and ecological systems, damage
to structures or amenity, or interference with legitimate use of the environment.’ Carry capacity (i.e. the number of individuals that can
be sustained on a certain amount of habitat, in our case, an area of land) may be reduced temporarily or permanently.
What is ‘acid rain’?
‘Acid rain’ more correctly should be described as acid deposition, for it refers to the deposition of acidic materials in rain, as fog, and
directly from the air on to foliage. The ‘acids’ come from combustion of fossil fuels and are principally sulfuric and nitric.

Acid rain: the deposition of acidic pollutants on land or water.

Acidic deposition: the deposition of acidic pollutants which reach vegetation, soils and water from the atmosphere even in dry
weather.

Acidity is measured using pH values. A pH value of 7 indicates neutrality while values below this indicate acidity and values above,
alkalinity. Rain is naturally slightly acidic, around pH 5 globally, and most natural waters fall into the range of pH 5 to 8.
Increasing acidity can be damaging can be to plants, animals and buildings. It is now known that through acidification of soils in
geologically sensitive areas, acid rain can inhibit plant nutrition and restrict the range flora and fauna. Fresh waters in such areas can
be made toxic to aquatic plants, invertebrates and fish. Acid rain also damages building materials such as stone, concrete and metals.
Ozone layer depletion: the ozone in the stratosphere forms a shield against damaging incoming radiation. It is vital for the
maintenance of life in terrestrial environment. There is now evidence that the ozone layer is thinning all over the world. The main
culprits are man-made chemicals which are so stable that they do not break down when released into the lower atmosphere. They are
carried up into the stratosphere, where their eventual breakdown releases the substances which speed up ozone destruction. The most
well known of these chemicals are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which are used in plastic foam packaging and insulation materials,
refrigerants, air conditioning, aerosols, solvents and dry cleaning products.

56
 Ozone/ O3 is a pungent, irritant gas occurring naturally throughout the atmosphere. It is a toxic pollutant in the lower atmosphere
or troposphere but at higher levels in the stratosphere it protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.
Ozone layer is ozone surrounding the earth in the upper atmosphere or stratosphere.

Global warming: certain gases in the atmosphere reflect back radiation from the earth. If the concentration of these rises, one might
expect the temperature of the earth to increase.

Global warming is an increase in the mean surface temperature of he earth

Ice core data show that levels of naturally occurring greenhouse gases remained relatively stable in the 800 years preceding the
industrial revolution, suggesting that the increases observed since then may be linked to increasing anthropogenic emissions. As
concentrations of greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere, the natural greenhouse effect is enhanced, accelerating the warming of
the earth’s surface. If trends in current patterns of human activity continue, the mean global surface temperature is predicted to arise
by 1 to 3.5 oC over this century.

Greenhouse gases are gases which ‘trap’ some of the heat radiated from the earth’s surface causing surface temperature to
increase. These include naturally occurring gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane and ozone as well as manufactured
gases such as CFCs.

Are we losing species too past?

There have been mass extinctions on earth caused by natural changes but they had occurred over hundred of years. For millions of
years, the number of extinctions per year seems to have been very low.
Like the silent rise in carbon dioxide levels, the extinction of species is also invisible. We do not realize that the wide variety of
species is our natural capital and that the process of evolution depends on this biodiversity. The loss of this diversity will affect our
ability to stay healthy and to adapt to a changing environment. It also affects our immediate future, including our food security.

Are we consuming too much?

The amount of natural resource used up every year began spiking around 1900. Steady economic growth since then had led to
extraordinary levels of unsustainable consumption. The rise in consumption is visible, but its effects are only partially noticeable. In

57
the mad race to consume more, we are using up the earth’s finite resources such as the topsoil, water and forests far faster than natural
process can regenerate them.

Are there too many people on earth?

The exponential growth in human population began in 1650 and now, every three days, the size of the world’s population increases by
as much as it did in a whole century throughout most o human existence. About 80 million people are added to the world’s population
every year. Of this 80 million, most are poor and need food, water, shelter, education, medical facilities, and so on.

Why should these quantities spike over the last two or three centuries?

These spikes are due to a fundamental change in our relationship with nature. This change began with the scientific and industrial
revolutions that occurred in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The new attitude towards nature came with the idea of
progress that advocated the superior role of humans as masters of nature. We could indefinitely exploit nature and our progress
towards a better life would be linear and continuous. Science and technology would help us in this quest for ceaseless progress and
development.

Can we blame all our ills on the scientific and industrial revolution?

Clearly, these two revolutions marked the beginning of exponential rate of consumption of natural resources by humans. There is also
the view that the problems began much earlier when humans shifted form being nomadic hunter-gatherers to settled agriculturalists.
The current problem is that we are living beyond our means; our ecological footprint is growing larger and larger.

Ecological footprint is a measure of the ecological impact of an entity, expressed as the extent of land needed to completely
sustain the entity.

Dissatisfaction with the idea of progress began surfacing in the 1960s, when the adverse environmental impact of unbridled growth
became clear. The United Nations Conference on Human Environment in 1972 at Stockholm was the first international initiative to
discuss environmental problems. Later, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) was set up in 1983 the
WCED report, Our Common Future, emphasizes the need for an integration of economic and ecological systems. The commission
supported the concept of sustainable development.
Besides Stockholm, the other major effort was the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in
1992 in Rio de Janeiro. Attended by more than a hundred heads of state and 30,000 participants, UNCED came up with several
documents including: (a) ‘The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’, listing 27 principles of sustainable development,

58
(b) ‘Agenda 21’, a detailed action plan for sustainable development in the twenty first century, and (c) ‘The Convention on Biological
Diversity’.
The next conference, popularly known as Rio+ 10, was held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2002. These conferences recognized
that the implementation of the Rio agreement had been poor. It marked a shift from agreements in principles to more modest but
concrete plans of action.
So far we have learned that our planet is in a peril due to human intervention. Environmental crisis become our day to day experience.
We are recognizing deforestation, soil loss, water and air pollution, desertification, loss of species habitat, loss of biodiversity,
suburban sprawl, escalating population, global warming and endless other problems. What is the way out from such a peril at hand?
Environmental ethics, which is concerned with the moral grounds for protecting the welfare of non human animals, the moral
foundations or laws protecting endangered species and the ethical basis for preserving and restoring degraded environments, is
undoubtedly imperative.
Without ethical guidelines i.e. unless we respect all life sustainable living is unachievable. Such respect implies limits on our actions:
there are things we should not do, not because they cannot be done but because doing them shows disrespect for life. There is nothing
wrong with humans exploiting their environment; every living thing must get resources from its environment to survive. The problem
is knowing how far we should go.
Thus ethical guidelines play vital role for ecosphere and ecosystem management, species and cultures conservation, individual
responsibility and becoming true earth citizens.

Explain the significance of the following ethical guidelines to ensure environmental protection

Ethical guidelines for ecosphere and ecosystem management

 We should not deplete or degrade earth’s physical, chemical and biological capital, which support all life and human economic
activities.
 We should to understand and cooperate with the rest of nature. The earth does not belong to us; we belong to the earth.
 We should work with the rest of nature to sustain the ecological integrity, biodiversity and adaptability to earth’s life support
system for us and other species.
 We have to alter nature to meet our needs or wants but we should choose methods that do the least possible harm to us and other
living things.

59
 Before altering nature we should carryout an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to help us decide whether to intervene and
to discover how to inflict the minimum short and long term harm.
Ethical guidelines for species and cultures conservation
 Every species has the right to live, or at least to struggle to live, simply because it exists.
 We have the right to defend ourselves against individuals of species that do us harm and to use individuals of species to meet vital
needs but we should strive not to cause the premature extinction of any wild species.
 The best way to protect species and individuals of species is to protect the ecosystems in which they live.
 No human culture should become extinct because of our actions.
Individual Responsibilities
 We should not inflict unnecessary suffering or pain on any animal we raise or hunt for food or use for scientific or other purposes.
 We should live wild organisms in the wilderness unless their survival depends on human protection.
 People should prevent excessive births and prevent excessive deaths of people and other species.
 We should strive to live more lightly on the earth, not because of guilt or fear but because of a desire to make the world a better
place.
 We should get to know, care about and defend a piece of the earth.
Becoming True earth Citizens
 Respect all life.
 Learn all you can about how nature works, about human nature and about the connections between every thing.
 Evaluate the beneficial and harmful consequences of your lifestyle and profession on the earth, today and in the future.
 Do the little things based on thinking globally and acting locally. Each small measure you take is important, sensitizes you to
earth-sustaining acts, and leads to more such acts.

60
 Target the big polluters and earth-degraders (industries, industrialized agriculture, governments) and work on big problems (ozone
depletion, biodiversity loss, possible climate change) through political action, economic boycotts and selective consumptions.
 Work with others to help sustain and heal the earth, beginning in your neighborhood and community.

Can you describe basic principles of environmental ethics?

The aforementioned guidelines are also expressed in the principles of environmental ethics. The basic principles of environmental
ethics are the following:
 Duty for future generation: every economic activity that is being taken in this generation should not adversely affect the future
generation.
 The duty to limit over consumption: Since the earth’s resources are finite, there should be a limit in the production and consumption
pattern of resources.
 The right to livable environment: every human being has inherent right to live in an environment which is free from pollution,
subjugation and exploitation.

What does article 44 of our constitution state about the right to livable environment?

 The polluter pay principles maintain that those actors who affect the environment need to pay the cost and value in proportion to the
damage.

Do you know that our planet is in crisis?

Why is there a general lack of public awareness about environmental issues?

There are many factors that limit our awareness of environmental issues. To the millions of poor people, the problems of daily
existence are more important than environmental degradation. The more prosperous are afraid that, in the name of the environment,
their comforts may be taken away. In any case, most of us do not pay the real costs of exploiting nature.
There is also false anti-environmental propaganda by vested interests like the large corporations, for whom constant growth is vital. At
the political level, parties are more interested in short-term gains and will not adopt unpopular measures to conserve the environment.
Further, in this age of extreme specialization very few can look at the larger picture of what is happening to the world. There is also a
lack of reliable and clear information on the environment.

61
 GROUP ASSIGNMENT 15%
The assignment contains a. introduction b. body c. conclusion d. references

Discuss (A)the role of peasant farmers, women, youth and professionals to ensure environmental sustainability in your locality. (B)Do
you think indigenous /traditional knowledge of your local community contributes for sustainable development? If Yes, how? If No,
explain some drawbacks of their activities that affect environmental health. What can the world learn, for example, from the Konso’s
community in South and others’ indigenous knowledge regarding conservation of the environment?
(C)Explain through tangible examples/experiences whether religious traditions in Ethiopia (both traditional belief systems and modern
religions) contribute to environmental protection. Here you can argue for or against the view of L.White.
(D)What are the roles of environmental NGOs in your locality?

ENVIRONMETAL ETHICS INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT

General Instruction: write short and precise answers for the following questions.
Your handwriting should be neat and legible.
1. What is applied ethics? Explain why it is different from other branches of ethics.
2. What is development for you?
3. Evaluate your country’s progress based on D. Seers’s notion and criteria of what development is.
4. According to Haq, founder of the Human Development Report, “the basic purpose of development is to enlarge people's
choices... The objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative
lives”. Evaluate whether you country is attempting to meet the objective of development. What are the challenges of
development objectives in the country in general and in your community in particular.
5. Explain the difference between the concept of authentic development and conventional notion of development.
6. What is environmental ethics? Do we need environmental ethics? Why or why not.
7. Explain the difference between anthropocentric and non- anthropocentric environmental ethics.
8. The historian Lynn White jr., argues that the main strands of Judeo-Christian thinking had encouraged the overexploitation of
nature by maintaining the superiority of humans over all other forms of life on earth, and by depicting all of nature as created
for the use of humans. Do you agree or disagree? Explain your view in brief.

62
9. Explain the following concepts
a) Deep ecology movement
b) Shallow ecology movement
c) Ecocentrism
d) Ecofeminism
e) Global warming

63