THree Major philosophical traditions In Environmental THOUGHT

· NATURAL LAW: Holds that honoring “laws of nature” should be guiding principle for our ethical theories.

· DEONTOLOGY (Principles, Duties, Rights): Reasons in terms of principles: we have fundamental duties that require us to act in certain ways/ refrain from others. “Means more important than ends”

· UTILITARIANISM (“Greatest Good for Greatest Number”): Reasons in terms of consequences of actions: we should strive to maximize overall social benefits.

“Ends justify means”

Identify the philosophical tradition reflected in each statement below (use the 3 categories from above):

A. _______________ “Beetles maintain soil health in rainforests, which in turn regulate air necessary for human life. Cattle ranchers should not be able to cut down forests for grazing, because benefits of clean air for billions of humans & animals outweigh the landowners’ individual profits.”

B. _______________ “Humans should avoid intervention in nature. Beetles have been on planet for millions of years longer than us; it is wrong for humans to come along and disrupt the intricate order of natural systems to which those beetles belong.”

(Can be framed in ecological OR religious/spiritual terms)

C. ________________ “Even if the consequence of killing beetle habitat would be highly profitable and beneficial to humans, we have an obligation to observe their right to exist. As moral beings striving to live worthy & ethical lives, we must honor fundamental principles of goodness and decency, even if the consequences do not directly benefit us (or even others).”

I. NATURAL LAW THEORY: “TELEOLOGY”

Major philosophers:

Aristotle (4th century BCE)

· Aristotle meticulously studied nature, believed all natural objects have distinctive activity. The goal of that activity (sometimes called “purpose” or “function”) is known as the object’s ________________ in Greek.

· Therefore, Aristotle’s science identified as teleological: according to Aristotle, we understand an object fully when we understand its natural purpose.

Telos of a heart? __________________________

· According to Aristotle’s Natural Law theory, things are “___________” when they fulfill their telos (purpose), or “actualize their potential.”

· Every living thing can be said to have a good of its own. The good of any living thing is to fully attain its natural activity. Thus the “good” of a plant is to take in nutrients, grow, & reproduce. “Good” of animals includes these functions as well as attaining desires and fulfilling appetite. The “good” of human includes all these ends, as well as living a thoughtful/deliberative life.

Thomas Aquinas (13th century CE)

· Further developed Aristotelian tradition w/in religious framework: as science comes to understand natural telos of each living thing, it helps us understand God’s purpose & intentions.

· Nature, designed by God, has purpose. Since God is supremely good, the ______________________ equated with the moral order. Functioning of nature reveals goodness of God’s plan.

Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law

· All parts of ecosystem have distinctive place: each contributes to natural order in its own way. “Nature __________________________ is good.” Ecological problems arise when humans interfere w/ natural order & regard nature valuable only when it serves a human purpose, rather than its own.

· All living things possess a “good” and purpose independent of human interests & uses.

· Therefore, the ethic deriving from Natural Law tradition is one of ____________________________.

Example: “Biocentric Ethics” of Paul Taylor (upcoming reading)

➡️ Identify some possible OBJECTIONS to natural law theory: _____________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

OBJECTIONS TO NATURAL LAW THEORY:

1. It seems true that some objects have definite purpose or function (such as a chair). Some parts of natural whole (such as a heart) also have natural function. But it’s not obvious if the wholes or systems themselves have a “purpose.”

2. Cannot conclude that something is good simply because it’s “natural” (eg. _______________).

Philosophers like Hume point out that while science can tell us about nature, it cannot provide basis for drawing ethical conclusions from nature: Just because something is does not mean it should be thus. Claim that ethical/normative conclusions cannot be inferred from natural fact is known as the “is/ought” gap, or “fact/value” gap.

3. Modern evolutionary science and principles of natural selection offer account of “design” in nature, but do not support claim that organisms have a telos (intended purpose). Order in nature does not come from a “plan,” but from process of species adapting to environments, typically through ________________________________________ and natural selection.

Example: Long neck of Giraffe is result of random evolutionary change, not a prior “purpose” or “design.”

* However, defenders of teleology may claim that adaption and survival are good in themselves, and therefore the adaptations that help species thrive are “good” for that species.

II. DEONTOLOGY: DUTIES & RIGHTS

Major philosopher: Immanuel Kant (late 18th Century)

Deontology literally translates to “___________” (Greek). Central concerns of ethics involve principles, rights & duties.

Principles matter, not consequences.

If outcome of dishonorable action accidently turns out for the best, this does not make that action “ethical” or “good.” Kantian principles insist moral judgments are contained in the act alone, and we are each accountable for our ______________________________.

This distinguishes Deontology from Utilitarianism (or Consequentialism), where “the ends justify the means”

“Ethical” = __________________: We act ethically when the principle on which we act is rational. The fundamental ethical duty, called the Categorical Imperative, directs us to act only in ways that all rational beings would find acceptable.

“Categorical Imperative”

A. Must be _____________________________: a rational principle would be found acceptable/binding by all other actors. An action would be ethical only if rational individuals agreed that it would be OK for everyone else to act in that way as well.

B. Treat humans as ____________, never as____________ (or as subjects, never simply objects).

This obligation is reciprocal (two-way), thus establishing our fundamental ethical rights. Like all people, I also have the right to be treated as an end, not as a means; I have the right to pursue my own purposes and goals (as long as I do not treat others as a means to achieve those goals).

The Categorical Imperative requires us to respect the rights of others at all times & under all conditions (that’s what it means to call it “categorical.”) This distinguishes it from Utilitarianism, where ethical actions are “contextual” (since an action like lying or killing may be judged right or wrong depending on circumstances, context & consequences)

OBJECTIONS TO DEONTOLOGY (THEORY OF DUTY):

1. Strong human-centered or anthropocentric bias implicit in tradition. Little basis for ethical obligations to anything that is not “rational.” Deontologist could claim that we must treat humans as ends because they’re rational, but ok to treat non-rational things as mere means. Deontology doesn’t answer question as to whether we have duties to animals, other living beings, or objects.

2. Exclusive emphasis on _______________________ can overlook “greater good” of society or nature. Example: property owner can argue that her right to exclusive use of land must be respected & upheld under all circumstances, even if it would provide habitat for wildlife and thousands of acres of forest, also benefitting the health of multiple human generations.

3. Too rigid to allow for exceptions. What is unethical in one _______________ may be ethical in another. Example: white lies to protect someone’s feelings, stealing to feed a hungry child, etc.

III. UTILITARIANISM (Consequentialism)

Major philosophers:

19th C. – Jeremy Bentham & John Stuart Mill

20th & 21st C. – Peter Singer (animal rights advocate); Gifford Pinchot (Conservationist with U.S. Forest Service)

Guiding Principle: “Greatest good for greatest number” / “Maximize the overall good”

· Utilitarian rule tells us to look at_____________________ of an act to determine if it’s ethical. If act maximizes good consequences (even if motives themselves are bad), it is ethically right.

Challenge: to define/defend concept of the “good.”

· If a good is to serve as basis for all other values, it should be objective (good in a way that’s not dependent on particular human interests) and universal (good for all people at all times).

· TWO different versions of Utilitarianism based on different understandings of the ultimate “Good”:

a. _____________________ (or at least absence of pain) is only good valued for its own sake. Pleasure is universally desired, so a world that had the least suffering and most pleasure would be the best world.

Peter Singer & Animal Rights advocates

b. Happiness (resulting from satisfaction of desires) is only good valued for its own sake. So world in which as many people have as much of what they desire as possible is the best world. Also known as “____________________________ Utilitarianism”.

Gifford Pinchot & Conservationists of U.S. Forest Service

Utilitarianism plays strong role today in economic, political and environmental policy.

OBJECTIONS TO UTILITARIAN THEORY:

1. Problem of _____________________________: How do you measure the achievement of qualitative states like happiness, pleasure, or desire? Are all pleasures created equal? Is the pleasure Jack gets from the silence & tranquility of wilderness equal to the pleasure Jill gets from racing loud snow-mobiles through it? Is the value of my factory, which emits pollutants & creates jobs, equal to the value you derive from breathing clean air? How can we measure/compare them?

2. To make comparison easier, values often reduced to single common denominator : ________________________

3. Problem of Scope: We can never know all consequences of an act, so Utilitarians tend to measure effects on immediate vicinity. Effect on distant populations, future generations or animals often ignored.

4. Problem of “___________________________”: According to Utilitarianism, no act in & of itself is ever right or wrong: it all depends on consequences (i.e. utility in maximizing benefit for greatest number). Thus, Utilitarianism neglects the important role that moral principles can play in decision-making (see Deontology).

Example: Is it ethically right to sentence one innocent person to death even if we could prove that their execution would prevent 5 other murders in a community?

~ ~

Keep in mind that none of these 3 philosophical approaches is inherently anthropocentric, biocentric or ecocentric (or inherently pro- or anti- environmental protection). It all depends on how one applies a given approach. For example, you can’t say that all politicians will take the same position on an issue, or all artists, athletes, or engineers will take a particular position. Instead, those groups use particular “techniques” or “methods” for approaching issues. We can’t assume any one will result in a single, predictable outcome.

To test your understanding, read the three environmental scenarios below. Each one asks you to apply a different philosophical approach you just learned ….but you must think of a pro- and anti- position for each of those approaches.

SCENARIO #1: Apply a DEONTOLOGICAL approach:

Developers will cut down a cluster of redwood trees to build a private residential neighborhood, but they plan to offset the logging by planting new trees in a nearby habitat. They also point out that this project will create hundreds of jobs and homes. Environmental activists know they will be arrested for protesting the development and cannot actually stop it, but still decide to chain themselves to the trees to publicize their opposition to the logging.

· Think of a deontological argument that sides with the environmental activists:

· Think of a deontological argument that sides with the developer:

SCENARIO #2: Apply a Utilitarian approach:

A medical research company plans to conduct painful laboratory experiments on 10,000 pigs to develop a cure for a disease that is extremely rare but very lethal, killing a small number of humans almost instantly. Protestors try to revoke the permit for these experiments.

· Think of a utilitarian argument that sides with the medical researchers:

· Think of a utilitarian argument that sides with the protestors:

SCENARIO #3: Apply a NATURAL LAW (or teleological) approach:

The vegetation of a suburban neighborhood is being destroyed by an exploding deer population, but the city council prohibits hunters from culling this herd (or shooting any wildlife).

· Think of a natural law argument that sides with the hunters:

· Think of a natural law argument that sides with the city council: