BENV 2207: ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

Prerequisites - CODM 2104: Principles of Conservation & Resource Use

Purpose
To enable students, develop attitude for intervening in and contributing to environmental conservation.

Learning Outcomes
1) Analyse the concept of environmental ethics

2) Analyse key issues in evolution of environmental ethics.

3) Understand the theoretical basis for the environmental ethics perspectives.

4) Analyse spiritual beliefs, natural science and environmental values that underlie human interactions
with the environment

5) Evaluate economics, technology issues and how they influence environmental values

1
 Table of Contents
BENV 2207: ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS..................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS..................................................................2
Environmental Ethics perspective................................................................................................3
Humanity’s pre-historical and historical attitudes towards the natural world.............................3
History of Environmental Ethics..................................................................................................4
The Scope of Environmental Philosophy and Environmental Ethics..........................................6
Features of Environmental Ethics................................................................................................8
Philosophical Issues in Environmental Ethics.................................................................................9
Approaches in Environmental Ethics............................................................................................10
THEORIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS...........................................................................11
Biocentrism................................................................................................................................11
Ecocentrism................................................................................................................................14
Origins of Ecocentrism...........................................................................................................14
Arne Naess (Deep Ecology).......................................................................................................16
Anthropocentrism.......................................................................................................................18
Implications............................................................................................................................20
Ecofeminism..............................................................................................................................21
Characterization of Ecofeminist Philosophy..........................................................................22
3.2 Oppressive Conceptual Frameworks................................................................................22
3.3 Linguistic Perspectives.....................................................................................................23
3.4 Historical Perspectives.....................................................................................................24
3.5 Socioeconomic Perspectives............................................................................................25
3.6 Epistemological Perspectives...........................................................................................25
3.7 Political Perspectives........................................................................................................26
3.8 Ethical Perspectives..........................................................................................................26
CONTEMPORARY ENVIRONMENT ETHICS.........................................................................27
Consequentialist ethical theories...............................................................................................27
Consequentialism is a theory that says whether something is good or bad depends on its
outcomes....................................................................................................................................27

2
Deontological ethical theories....................................................................................................28
Deontology is an ethical theory that says actions are good or bad according to a clear set of
rules............................................................................................................................................28

3
INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
Environmental ethics is the philosophical discipline that considers the moral and ethical
relationship of human beings to the environment. In other words it considers the ethical
basis of environmental protection. Its emergence was the result of increased awareness
of how the rapidly growing world population was impacting the environment as well as
the environmental consequences that come with the growing use of pesticides,
technology and industry. It aims to provide ethical justification and moral motivation
for the cause of global environmental protection. Environmental ethics helps define
man’s moral and ethical obligations towards the environment. It considers the ethical
relationship between people and the natural world and the kind of decisions people have
to make about the environment.

Environmental ethics is a branch of ethics that studies the moral relationship between
human beings and the natural environment. It covers a wide range of topics, such as the
moral status of non-human entities (e.g. animals, plants, ecosystems), the moral
obligations of individuals and organizations towards the environment, and the moral
foundations of environmental policies. Environmental ethics is interdisciplinary in
nature, drawing on insights from fields such as philosophy, environmental science, and
conservation biology.

Ethics is a part of philosophy and guide us to follow righteous path which is in the larger
interest of the society as a whole. Environmental ethics is related to environmental
philosophy and defines what is right and wrong at ecological level. It is more a moral
binding than legal compulsions. Practicing environmental ethics is, therefore, left to an
individual. The outcome of such practices is always par excellence since it comes from
voluntarily and hence with dedication. Educating today‘s youths, thus, becomes more
significant in order to achieve expected outcome.

Modern philosophy on environmental ethics has evolved in the second half of twentieth
century. Population explosion, environmental degradation, resource crisis etc problems
drew the attention towards the environmental concerns. However, it also raised some
challenges while deciding the environmental ethics in contemporary situation. Disparity
among society, nations and region; basic right to procure the resources for daily
livelihood; right to access to resources etc were the key challenges in designing
environmental ethics. This has led to different views on environmental ethics. And this
also led to formulation of different approaches on environmental ethics.

4
Environmental Ethics perspective
There are many diverse perspectives within environmental ethics, but their main
difference lies in how they place value on nature or aspects of nature. There are two
types of value:
i) Instrumental value - that describes the value of something in how it can
be used or useful, usually in relation to human wants or needs.
ii) Intrinsic value - which is the value something has for its own sake,
regardless of whether it's useful to humans or not.
Emergence of environmental ethics was the result of increased awareness of how the
rapidly growing world population was impacting the environment as well as the
environmental consequences that come with the growing use of pesticides, technology
and industry.
It aims to provide ethical justification and moral motivation for the cause of global
environmental protection. Environmental ethics helps define man’s moral and ethical
obligations towards the environment. It considers the ethical relationship between
people and the natural world and the kind of decisions people have to make about the
environment.

Thus, environmental ethics has no specific international environmental code, it simply

tries to answer the questions of how humans should relate to their environment, how we
should use the Earth’s resources & how we should treat other species among others.

Humanity’s pre-historical and historical attitudes towards the natural

world
Humans have had a wide range of attitudes towards the natural world throughout pre-
historical and historical times.

Pre-historically, early human societies were heavily dependent on the natural world for
survival. They had a deep understanding of the plants and animals in their environment
and developed complex systems for hunting and gathering. Many pre-historical societies
also had a spiritual connection to the natural world and believed in the existence of
spirits in natural phenomena.

During the Neolithic period, humans transitioned from a nomadic hunter-gatherer

lifestyle to a settled agricultural one. This change in lifestyle led to a greater
manipulation of the natural world, as people cleared forests and changed the landscape
to suit their needs. However, many Neolithic societies still had a spiritual connection to
the natural world and believed in the existence of spirits in natural phenomena.

5
In ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia, Egypt and China, the natural world was
often seen as something to be controlled and harnessed for human benefit. The gods and
goddesses of these societies were often associated with natural elements such as the sun,
the moon, and the Nile river.

In ancient Greece and Rome, the natural world was often seen as something to be
studied and understood. Philosophers such as Aristotle and Pliny the Elder made
detailed observations of plants and animals, and the natural world was often depicted in
art and literature.

During the Middle Ages, the Christian Church held a significant influence over society's
attitudes towards the natural world. The Church taught that the natural world was
created by God for the benefit of humanity, and that humans were given the right to use
and control it.

During the Renaissance, the natural world was seen as something to be studied and
understood. The works of scientists such as Galileo and Leonardo da Vinci helped to
change attitudes towards the natural world and laid the foundations for modern
scientific thinking.

During the Industrial Revolution, the natural world was often seen as a resource to be
exploited for human benefit. The rapid industrialization and urbanization led to the
widespread pollution and destruction of the natural environment.

In more recent times, attitudes towards the natural world have become more complex.
Environmental movements have brought awareness to the importance of preserving the
natural world, and many people now have a greater appreciation of the natural
environment. However, the exploitation of natural resources continues to be a major
issue and the harm caused to the environment by human activity is still a concern.

In conclusion, humanity’s attitudes towards the natural world have evolved over time,
from a deep spiritual connection to the natural world in pre-historical times to the
exploitation and manipulation of the natural world in more recent times. Throughout
history, attitudes towards the natural world have been influenced by various factors
such as religious beliefs, scientific discoveries and technological advancements, cultural
values and societal needs.

History of Environmental Ethics

Environmental ethics is a branch of ethics that is concerned with the moral relationship
between humans and the natural environment. It is a relatively new field that has only
been recognized as a distinct area of study for the past few decades. However, the
history of environmental ethics can be traced back to ancient times when people first
began to consider the relationship between humans and nature.

6
Ancient civilizations had a deep respect for the natural world and often saw the
environment as a sacred place. The ancient Egyptians, for example, believed that the
Nile River was a source of life and fertility, and they held festivals to honor the river
each year. The ancient Greeks also had a deep reverence for nature and believed that the
natural world was full of gods and goddesses who controlled the elements. This belief
led to the creation of many myths and legends that celebrated the beauty and power of
nature.

In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church played a significant role in shaping people's
understanding of the environment. The Church taught that humans were stewards of
the natural world, and it was their responsibility to protect and preserve it. This idea
was reflected in the medieval concept of the "Great Chain of Being," which held that all
living things were part of a hierarchy, with God at the top and plants and animals below.

During the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, the relationship
between humans and nature began to change. The rapid industrialization and
urbanization led to the exploitation of natural resources, the pollution of the
environment, and the displacement of many rural communities. However, it was not
until the 20th century that the first formal environmental movements began to emerge.

One of the earliest environmental movements was the conservation movement, which
began in the United States in the late 19th century. The movement was led by people like
John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt, who believed that the natural resources of the
country were being depleted at an alarming rate and needed to be protected. They called
for the creation of national parks and wilderness areas to preserve the natural beauty of
the country.

In the 1960s, the environmental movement began to take on a more political and
scientific tone. The publication of Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" in 1962 marked
a turning point in the environmental movement. The book exposed the dangers of
pesticides and chemical pollution, and it helped to raise awareness about the impact of
human activity on the environment.

In the 1970s, the environmental movement grew to include a more diverse range of
issues, such as air and water pollution, deforestation, and endangered species. The
creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 marked a significant
step forward in the government's efforts to protect the environment. The EPA was
charged with enforcing federal environmental laws and regulations, and it played a key
role in cleaning up the country's air and water.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the environmental movement began to focus on global issues,
such as climate change and biodiversity. The United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, marked a significant

7
step forward in the international community's efforts to address global environmental
problems. The conference led to the creation of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD).

Today, environmental ethics continues to be an important field of study, and it is

increasingly being integrated into other areas of study, such as economics, politics, and
philosophy. The field of environmental ethics is becoming more complex as new
challenges and issues arise, such as the impact of climate change, the loss of
biodiversity, and the depletion of natural resources. However, the history of
environmental ethics shows that people have always had a deep respect for the natural
world, and they have always been motivated to protect and preserve it.

The Scope of Environmental Philosophy and Environmental Ethics

Environmental Ethics studies principles of value and obligation, the concepts involved,
the status of these principles, and their application to practical issues such as the
preservation of biodiversity, ecological restoration and the mitigation of climate change.
It is usually regarded as a branch of applied ethics, akin to older branches such as
medical ethics and the ethics of war and peace, and a neighbour of such new branches of
applied ethics as business ethics and development ethics. Yet some of its findings, such
as the suggestion that non-human living creatures have moral standing, challenge some
of the longstanding tenets of normative ethics, and have thus contributed to ethical
themes central to the whole gamut of mainstream ethical investigation and concern.

Environmental philosophy studies philosophical issues that extend beyond ethical ones,
including metaphysical ones concerning the relation of humanity to nature, and that of
religious belief to both nature and humanity; aesthetic ones concerning the character of
aesthetic value, as found in nature rather than in human art, and its place in education;
issues surrounding the interface of environmental ethics and environmental economics;
and also issues of political decision-making, and the representation in decision-making
forums both of current people and of future and nonhuman interests. Eco-feminists
would add the study of parallels between the treatment of nature and of women, and the
importance of forms of self-understanding which, instead of privileging the rational,
adopt a rounded view of human relationships and identity, with persons recognised as
embodied and involved in networks of relationships, both with other people and with
other species. Yet others hold that the findings of environmental philosophy can
reconfigure our self-understanding as agents, together with our attitudes to our
environment and to (the rest of) nature.

The inspiration for environmental ethics was the first Earth Day in 1970 when
environmentalists started urging philosophers who were involved with environmental
groups to do something about environmental ethics. A growing trend has been to

8
combine the study of both ecology and economics to help provide a basis for sustainable
decisions on environmental use.

Environmental ethics try to define the moral basis of environmental responsibility.

Environmental issues require a consideration of ethics and morals. For example,
because there is currently enough food in the world to feed everyone adequately, it is
unethical to allow some people to starve while others have more than enough. However,
the predominant mood of those in the developed world is one of indifference. They don’t
feel morally bound to share what they have with others.

In reality, this indifference says that it is permissible to allow people to starve. This
moral stand is not consistent with the purely ethical one. As we can see ethics and
morals are not always the same, thus it is often difficult to clearly define what is right
and what is wrong. Some individuals view the world’s energy situation as serious and
reduce their consumption. Others do not believe there is a problem and so do not
modify their energy use. They will use energy as long as it is available.

The earth is remarkable and valuable for both the nature and culture that occur on it.
Evolutionary history has been going on for billions of years, while cultural history is only
about a hundred thousand years old. But, certainly from here onwards, culture
increasingly determines what natural history shall continue.

The debate about ethics as applied to nature asks whether the primary values about
which we should be concerned are cultural, that is anthropocentric, or whether there is
an also intrinsic natural value independent of human.

Although all deliberate human behaviour differs from the processes of spontaneous
nature, some are healthy for humans because they agree with the natural systems with
which their cultural decisions interact. The environmental ethics from this century will
increasingly have to ask whether and why cultures should preserve any natural values at
all and what kind of balance ought to be reached?

The Earth is now in a post-evolutionary phase. Culture is the principal determinant of

earth’s future, more now than nature; we are into a century when this will be
increasingly obvious. Indeed, some say that the principal novelty of the new millennium
earth will be a managed planet. Meanwhile the techno-sphere remains in the biosphere;
we are not in a post-ecological phase. The management of the planet must conserve
environmental values.

Ethical issues dealing with the environment are different from other kinds of ethical
problems. Depending on our perspective, an environmental ethic could encompass

9
differing principles and beliefs. All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise that
the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parents.

The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soil, water,
plants and animals or collectively the land. A land ethic changes the role of man from
conqueror of land community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his
fellow members and also respect for the community. Some environmental ethics are
founded on the awareness that humanity is part of nature and that nature’s parts are
interdependent.

In any natural community, the well-being of the individual and of each species is tied to
the well-being of the whole. In a world increasingly without environmental borders,
nations like individuals should have a fundamental ethical responsibility to respect
nature and to care for the earth, protecting its life-supporting systems, biodiversity, and
beauty and caring for the needs of other countries and future generations.

Features of Environmental Ethics

Environmental ethics aims to provide ethical justification and moral motivation for the
cause of global environmental protection. There are several distinctive features of
environmental ethics:

i) Environmental ethics is extended. Traditional ethics mainly concerns

intrahuman duties, especially duties among contemporaries. Environmental
ethics extends the scope of ethical concerns beyond one’s community and
nation to include not only all people everywhere, but also animals and the
whole of nature – the biosphere – both now and beyond the imminent future
to include future generations.

ii) Environmental ethics is interdisciplinary. There are many over lapping

concerns and areas of consensus among environmental ethics, environmental
politics, environmental economics, environmental sciences and
environmental literature, for example. The distinctive perspectives and
methodologies of these disciplines provide important inspiration for
environmental ethics, and environmental ethics offers value foundations for
these disciplines. They reinforce, influence and support each other.

iii) Environmental ethics is plural. From the moment it was born, environmental
ethics has been an area in which different ideas and perspectives compete
with each other. All environmental ethics theories provide unique and, in
some sense, reasonable ethical justifications for environmental protection.
Their approaches are different, but their goals are by and large the same, and

10
 they have reached this consensus: it is everyone’s duty to protect the
environment. The basic ideas of environmental ethics also find support from,
and are embodied in, various well-established cultural traditions. The
pluralism of theories and multicultural perspectives is critical for
environmental ethics to retain its vitality.

iv) Environmental ethics is global. Ecological crisis is a global issue.

Environmental pollution does not respect national boundaries. No country
can deal with this issue alone. To cope with the global environmental crisis,
human beings must reach some value consensus and cooperate with each
other at the personal, national, regional, multinational and global levels.
Global environmental protection depends on global governance. An
environmental ethic is, therefore, typically a global ethic with a global
perspective.

v) Environmental ethics is revolutionary. At the level of ideas, environmental

ethics challenges the dominant and deep-rooted anthropocentrism of modern
mainstream ethics and extends the object of our duty to future generations
and non-human beings. At the practical level, environmental ethics forcefully
critiques the materialism, hedonism and consumerism accompanying modern
capitalism, and calls instead for a ‘green lifestyle’ that is harmonious with
nature. It searches for an economic arrangement that is sensitive to Earth’s
limits and to concerns for quality of life. In the political arena, it advocates a
more equitable international economic and political order that is based on the
principles of democracy, global justice and universal human rights.

Philosophical Issues in Environmental Ethics

The intrinsic value of nature: One of the central issues in environmental ethics is the
question of whether nature has intrinsic value or whether it is only valuable in so far as
it benefits humans. Some philosophers argue that nature has its own inherent value,
independent of its usefulness to humans, while others argue that nature is only valuable
in so far as it can be used for human benefit.

The moral status of non-human entities: Another key issue in environmental ethics is
the question of the moral status of non-human entities, such as animals, plants, and
ecosystems. Some philosophers argue that non-human entities have the same moral
status as human beings, while others argue that they have a lower moral status or no
moral status at all.

The moral obligations of humans to the natural environment: Environmental ethics

also addresses the question of what moral obligations humans have to the natural
environment. Some philosophers argue that humans have a moral duty to protect the

11
environment for its own sake, while others argue that humans have a moral duty to
protect the environment for the sake of future generations.

The limits of human control over nature: Environmental ethics also addresses the
question of the limits of human control over nature. Some philosophers argue that
humans should have complete control over nature, while others argue that there are
limits to human control, and that nature should be allowed to exist in its own right.

The relationship between environmental ethics and other moral theories:

Environmental ethics also addresses the question of how it relates to other moral
theories, such as consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. Some philosophers
argue that environmental ethics is compatible with these theories, while others argue
that it is not.

Approaches in Environmental Ethics

The empirical approach: empirical approach to environmental ethics focuses on the
study of the natural environment and the effects of human actions on it. This approach
is based on the assumption that the natural environment is a physical object that can be
studied and understood through scientific methods.

The normative approach: Other environmentalists take a normative approach to

environmental ethics, which focuses on the study of moral principles and how they
should be applied to the natural environment. This approach is based on the assumption
that moral principles can be applied to the natural environment, and that there are
moral obligations that humans have to the natural environment.

The interdisciplinary approach: Environmental ethics often takes an interdisciplinary

approach, which combines the insights of different disciplines, such as philosophy,
biology, sociology, and economics. This approach is based on the assumption that the
environmental crisis is a complex problem that requires a holistic solution.

The pragmatic approach: Some environmentalists take a pragmatic approach to

environmental ethics, which focuses on finding practical solutions to the environmental
crisis. This approach is based on the assumption that the environmental crisis is a
problem that can be solved with the right technology, policy, or management practices.

The critical approach: Environmental ethics also takes a critical approach, which
focuses on analyzing the underlying assumptions and ideologies that shape

12
humanity’s pre-historical and historical attitudes towards the natural world, the birth
and subsequent theories of contemporary environmental ethics, and the possibilities
open to us for future interaction with our environment.

philosophical issues and methodological assumptions. Spiritual beliefs, natural science

and environmental values; economics, technology and environmental values; social
development and environmental values.

THEORIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

There are several theories of contemporary environmental ethics that have been
developed over the past few decades. These theories attempt to provide a moral
framework for understanding the relationship between humans and the natural
environment.

Biocentrism
Biocentrism - a system of ethics that attempts to protect all life in nature. Under
Biocentrism, all life - not just human life - should be protected for the organism's sake,
regardless of the good it does humans. Taylor strongly holds that humans cannot let
selfish desire get in the way of moral decisions about the environment.

The term biocentrism encompasses all environmental ethics that "extend the status of
moral object from human beings to all living things in nature". Biocentric ethics calls for
a rethinking of the relationship between humans and nature. It states that nature does
not exist simply to be used or consumed by humans, but that humans are simply one
species amongst many, and that because we are part of an ecosystem, any actions which
negatively affect the living systems of which we are a part adversely affect us as
well, whether or not we maintain a biocentric worldview.
Taylor argues for the rather radical view that all living things have inherent value, and
so are deserving of moral respect, equally. For Taylor, all that is required to have
inherent value is to be alive – essentially, striving towards staying alive. He grounds his
view in the idea of "Respect for Nature", which is an extension of the Kantian principle
of Respect for Persons.

To begin, Taylor clarifies his position by distinguishing it from an ecocentric view –

namely, it is not fundamentally holistic. The 'balance of nature' does not lead us to any
moral principles. Rather, the good or well-being of all individual living things is of
primary concern (so it is no anthropocentric either). There may be duties that require us
to protect ecological systems, but these are only indirect duties to the individual living
things that inhabit the ecological system.

13
Taylor argues that a biocentric ethic can be established (justified) by us taking on a new
kind of moral attitude. This is the attitude that all living things, and not only humans,
have inherent worth – i.e., the attitude of respect for nature. But clearly, quite a bit of
work needs to be done to establish that we ought to take on the new attitude. Two things
need to be made clear, first.

(1) All living things have a good of their own – that is, they can be benefited or harmed.
This is reflected in the idea that all living things have the potential to grow and develop
according to their biological natures. So, things can either go well or not with respect to
this potential.

This idea is not grounded, according to Taylor, in the ideas of having interests, or having
an interest in something; and it is not conditional upon being sentient, or having
consciousness. (Taylor thinks it is an open question whether a machine might have a
good of its own in the relevant sense.)

(2) The attitude of respect for nature requires that we accept that all living things
possess inherent worth. This would be reflected in us – were we to take on the attitude
of respect for nature – adopting certain dispositions of behavior, namely, in general, to
act so as to show equal respect for all living things 'good of their own'.

This doesn't justify the claim that all living things do have inherent worth, though. So,
more needs to be done to show this. Taylor's strategy is to argue that the claim that
living things possess inherent worth will be justified if it can be shown that we are
justified in adopting the attitude of respect for nature. Presumably, he thinks that
respecting nature directly implies that we regard living things as possessing inherent
worth.

Biocentrists observe that all species have inherent value, and that humans are not
"superior" to other species in a moral or ethical sense.
Biocentrism works under the assumption that all life is interdependent. For example, if
the deer population are over-hunted then the coyote and wolf will be affected as well.

The four main pillars of a biocentric outlook are:

1. Humans are thought of as members of the Earth's community of life, holding that
membership on the same terms apply to all non-human members (i.e. humans
share the same value as all other living beings).

– that we are animals – the product of natural evolutionary processes – is a

fundamental feature of our existence. Also, as animals, we are entirely dependent

14
 on ecological systems for survival. [Humans might even be regarded as a rather
nasty pest, with nothing but good consequences for the rest of Earth's living
things if we were to be eliminated.]

2. The Earth's natural ecosystem as a totality are seen as a complex web of

interconnected elements. – the long term ecological equilibrium is necessary for
the continued existence of all individual living things. This holistic nature of
ecosystems, though, is a factual aspect of the Earth, and does not lead
automatically to any moral norms.
3. Each individual living thing is "conceived of as a teleological (relating to or
involving the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather
than of the cause by which they arise) center of life" – i.e., with its own goals, its
own biological function. – when we look at other living things from their point of
view – i.e., with their goals – we see that they are a unique teleological center of
life, striving to achieve their goals.
4. Humans are not in any way superior to other living things. The idea that humans
are superior to other species is a groundless claim, and must be rejected as an
irrational bias.– humans must give up their arrogance towards other living things
– there is no reason to think that our special set of attributes and capabilities is
somehow superior to any other organism's special attributes and capabilities. To
do so is analogous to the hierarchical class structure artificially imposed
throughout human history. And, there is no reason to think that we are
fundamentally distinct – and superior – because we possess a soul, even if there
exists such a thing/substance.

Basically, biocentrism argues that humans should extend the moral duties they feel
towards other humans to other species with the understanding that the planet's
ecosystems are interconnected.

Taylor argues that all organisms are unified systems of goal-oriented activities directed
at self-preservation. He continues to say that we need to realize how affecting one part
of that web can dramatically affect the others. He argues that the well-being of humans
relies on the soundness of that web. For example, if grain goes extinct, we have no grain,
nor do we have the animals that eat it, nor do we have the animals that eat those
animals. Our food supply will be cut dramatically shorter. Taylor's biocentrism argues
that we need to put limits on human population, and technology so that people can
properly share the earth with other beings. biocentrism attempts to make humans a part
of nature, rather than the masters of nature. We can still eat other beings, however, we
cannot do it at a rate that harms the natural ecosystems. An important element in
Taylor's argument is the fact that humans share the same value as animals. While it's

15
true humans are rational this survival skill is not different than claws on a tiger. Having
a rational mind does not elevate us over nature.

So, the adoption of this biocentric outlook, Taylor suggests, leads us to adopting the
attitude of respect for nature, with the implication that we now have a non-
anthropocentric environmental ethic.

Taylor cautions that this does not mean that we ascribe moral rights to individual living
things. However, we are left without a clear account of just what it means.

Ecocentrism
Eco-centrism is nature-centered - is that holistic theory according to which the whole
eco-system, comprising both the biotic and abiotic parts of nature, deserves moral
worth. This ecocentric theory directs us to extend our moral concern to items that are
non-human, indeed to things that are not even animals, such as plants, forests etc.
The perspective of ecocentrism focuses on the interests of all species and natural
features of Earth's ecosystems, refusing to place any aspect or species above the others.
Much of the supporting information for this ethic comes from ecological sciences and
their study of interspecies relationships, natural processes, and the interrelationships
between natural features and biological organisms.
Ecocentrists focus on the intrinsic value of all these entities in their own right while
acknowledging their instrumental value to one another as part of the natural process.
The term itself preferences the ecosystem as the most important unit or source of value.
This stands in stark opposition to anthropocentric views that place human wants and
needs as more valuable and important than all other natural entities.

Origins of Ecocentrism
Aldo Leopold (Land ethic)

Aldo Leopold is often credited as the earliest ecocentrist, based on his writings in the
late 1940s. In this book, A Sand County Almanac, he introduced the concept of land
ethic. By ''land,'' Leopold refers to the entire ecological community of a place or of
natural settings in general.
His two most cited statements in support of a land ethic are as follows:
''That land is a community is the basic concept of ecology, but that land is to be loved
and respected is an extension of ethics.''
And ''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.''

16
Leopold suggests that throughout the history of ethics there has been an underlying
theme of moral extensionism. From this, an ethic for nature (i.e., the Land) can evolve.
This ethic would be philosophically based but also, importantly, ecologically-based.

Leopold says that "An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation of social from anti-social
conduct". Some might think that this view is somewhat simplistic and perhaps
presupposes a particular conception of morality, but the definition looks good enough
for our purposes. Following this, though, we get Leopold's definition of an ethic
understood from the ecological point of view, namely:

"An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence".

Leopold thinks that these are, in essence, definitions of the same thing, grounded in
evolutionary modes of cooperation. Traditionally, ethics dealt with relations – or more
precisely, conflicts – among individuals (and usually individual humans), and relations
between individuals and society (i.e., politics). From this, within moral contexts, we can
talk of both the individual good and the common good. Both need to be taken into
account. Leopold's main concern is that there is no ethic dealing with the relations
between individuals and the Land. Such an ethic is both an evolutionary possibility and
an ecological necessity, according to Leopold.

This ethic is the "Land Ethic". It arises out of a criticism of the conventional way of
viewing the Land – i.e., in purely economic terms. The key problem, here, is that most
members of the Land community do not have an economic value. Because of this, there
is no grounding for prohibiting or even restricting their destruction.

We see this reflected in a number of ideas and attitudes we commonly have towards
various non-economic pieces of the environment. Wetland areas, dunes, deserts, etc.,
are considered 'wasteland'. Further, there is a problem with Conservationist attempts at
dealing with environmental concerns. Conservation, again, will focus primarily on
economically valuable natural resources, without any consideration for other things and
the interconnections between these that enable sustainable biological production of the
resources we use/need.

Opposed to this view of the Land, Leopold suggests we adopt the ecological outlook.
That is, we should see the Land as a pyramidal system with interconnected chains – "a
fountain of energy flowing through a circuit of soil, plants, and animals". The ecological
point of view recognizes that all species are ecologically valuable, and that we are likely
to never fully understand the relations between things that enable ecological systems to
be sustained. The fundamental principle of the Land Ethic is this:

17
"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".

With the Land Ethic, Humans' role is changed from conqueror to plain member or
citizen of the biotic community. We see clearly that Leopold proposes a fundamental
shift in the criterion of moral considerability, with the direct result of a considerable
extension of the boundaries of the moral community. Further, that there is a move from
an individualistic ethic to a holistic ethic.

Leopold thinks that once evolved the Land ethic is not likely to lead to ending of
alteration, management, and use of 'natural resources' – plants and animal included.
However, it will lead to sustainable practices.

Arne Naess (Deep Ecology)

Naess is considered the founder of the so-called "deep ecology" movement. Deep ecology
involves a shift from 'shallow' concerns for the environment – i.e., anthropocentric
concerns about pollution, resource depletion, etc. – to 'deeper' non-anthropocentric
concerns directly for nature.
Arne Naess, says “modern ecology has emphasized a high degree of symbiosis as a
common feature in mature ecosystems, an interdependence for the benefit of all.”
As is directly implied by the title, deep ecology is influenced by fundamental ecological
principles. As Naess points out, though, this does not mean that the moral principles or
prescriptions that arise follow directly from ecology; ecology is, of course, descriptive,
whereas deep ecology is prescriptive. Rather, the norms of deep ecology come from
having an ecological attitude. Naess characterizes it in detail in the following way.

(1) Relational, total-field image – a view of nature such that individual organisms are
understood and not having an independent existence. Rather, each organism is at least
partly constituted by its relations to other organisms in an ecosystem. This includes
humans, so humans are not independent of nature.

(2) Biospherical egalitarianism – a view that, in principle, all living things deserve a
certain kind of respect. In particular, a respect for their "equal right to live and
blossom;" not according this respect is "anthropocentrism". This does mean that all
living things have equal moral worth. To illustrate, it would not necessarily be wrong to
kill and eat some animal.

(3) Principles of diversity and symbiosis – a recognition that there is mutual advantage
in having diversity both of organisms and modes of life for humans. With this is the idea
that symbiosis and cooperation (with nature) are better ways of viewing our
relationships to nature rather than domination and control.

18
(4) Anti-class posture – the above principles of diversity and symbiosis are meant to
apply to all things and all people. That is, there are no 'classes' of organisms or people,
with respect to choices of modes of life.

(5) Rejection of anti-pollution and conservation strategies. The thinking here is that
concentration on 'conservation' issues rather than deep ecology (and preservation) will
do two things: (i) detract from the requirements of, and need for, deep ecology, and (ii)
enhance rather than reduce class differences.

(6) complexity, not complication – recognition of the complexity of the biosystem

should make humans suitably modest about our level of understanding of natural
processes. It's not entirely clear what Naess thinks this means for humans, but he seems
to be suggesting that because of our ignorance, our best policy is to adopt pluralistic
modes of life so as to avoid causing systems to fail because of singular destructive
actions.

(7) Local autonomy and decentralization – local control allows for direct relationships
between the seats of power and specific concerns. It also has the influence of localizing
resource use to reduce energy consumption.

These various ideas are meant to characterize an attitude, or perhaps a set of attitudes,
that will lead us to develop norms of conduct that would reflect a concern for the
environment on an ecological level. Such an attitude arises out of what Naess called
"ecosophy" a blend of ecology and philosophy. Specific principles of action will likely
vary according to local contexts, but the underlying ideas are universal.

Environmental ethics provides moral grounds for social policies aimed at protecting the
earth’s environment and remedying environmental degradation. That is why it can be
viewed that environmental ethics involves ecological consciousness amongst us.

Ecological consciousness is a growing spirit that speaks of tolerance, interdependence

etc. It also show path to a sustainable future. Ecological consciousness makes a bond in
nature creating ecological balance. Otherwise the concept of ecological imbalance will
emerge. Therefore, it can be opined that we are in a chain in environment if one knot is
displaced from another the whole chain will be useless. Similarly it can be asserted that
nature is an umbrella of all beings under which each and every being develop forms of
life according to their own nature.

Naess listed some deep-ecology platform that may be summarized as follows:

i) All life has value in itself, independently of its usefulness to humans.

19
 ii) Richness and diversity contribute to life’s well-being and have value in
themselves.
iii) Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital
needs in a responsible way.
iv) The impact of humans in the world is excessive and rapidly getting worse.
v) The diversity of life, including culture can flourish only with reduced human
impact.
vi) Basic ideological, political, economic and technological structure must therefore
change.

This six fold deep ecology platform shows that it emphasises not the rights of human
but the interdependence of all ecosystem and sees the environment as a whole entity,
valuable in itself. This is often known as ”eco-holism”.
The American philosopher, “Aldo Leopold”, first felt, more than half century ago, the
need for eco-centric environmental ethics, an “ ethic dealing with the man’s relation to
the land and to the animal and plants.”

Thus according to Leopold_ prescription, “a thing is right when it tends to preserve the
integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends to
otherwise.”

Hence, it can be said that the ecocentric ethics starts from a rejection of the „man-in-
environment_ image in favour of the relational, total field image. Thus, each and every
organism is an integral part of the ecosystem and has its impact over it.

Anthropocentrism
An Anthropocentrism environmental ethics grants moral standing exclusively to
humans being and considers non-human natural entities and nature as a whole to be
only a means for human ends. Anthropocentrism regards human as separate form and
superior to nature and holds that human life has intrinsic value of nature.

Anthropocentrism The inadequacy of traditional ethical theories was initially attributed

to their anthropocentrism – i.e., to their assumption that human beings and/ or their
interests matter morally in their own right while everything else matters morally only
insofar as it affects human beings and/or their interests. Any view that understands
morality simply as a matter of the obligations that humans have to one another, early
theorists argued, cannot claim that humans have direct moral obligations to the natural
world; thus, such views fail to capture an essential aspect of our relationship with the
natural world. This point was illustrated most clearly by Richard Routley’s ‘last person’
case. Routley asks the reader to imagine that some catastrophe has killed every other
human being on earth such that there is only one person left alive. If this person were

20
dying, and if with his or her last dying breath it would be possible to push a button that
would destroy the rest of life on earth (plants, animals, ecosystems, etc.), would there be
anything morally wrong about doing so? Routley’s worry is that anthropocentric
theories cannot explain why it would be morally wrong to push the button under these
circumstances. If moral obligations come from the interests of humans, then once
humans and their interests cease to exist, so do moral obligations. To put the point
another way, if the natural world has value only insofar as it serves human interests,
then in a case in which the natural world cannot possibly serve our interests (because we
no longer exist), it can have no value, and thus there is nothing wrong with destroying it.
In order to explain what would be wrong with pushing the button in the last person case,
early environmental ethicists argued, ethical theories need to claim that the natural
world has value that is independent of humans and/or their interests and that our moral
obligations regarding the natural world aren’t just a matter of what we owe to our fellow
humans. Only by meeting these theoretical criteria can we arrive at an ethic (as Tom
Regan describes it) ‘of the environment, rather than an ethic for the use of the
environment’

Anthropocentrism means holding humans as the central and most important being in
the universe. In debate more often than not if a team is talking about anthropocentrism
they are running a critique about some way you try to help or some characterization you
have made about non-human animals or the environment. While there are many
different links, some of the more general, popular ones include:

i) Trying to save some particular species – Much of the anthropocentrism

literature speaks of humans creating safeguards to protect species as a means
to exert control of domination over those species. Think of the justifications
you hear to save the rain forest. I'm sure you've heard the argument "you
never know if an animal or plant could be the cure cancer". This is a highly
anthropocentric viewpoint for the protection of species, an easy link for the
negative

ii) Trying to create sustainability – More often than not this will come up when
affirmatives have a plan which would make consumption of a fossil fuel more
efficient, or regulate a form of pollution (for example, automobile exhaustion)
to make it less harmful. While these policies may seem benign, they could be
characterized as anthropocentric. A good critique link would argue the only
thing these policies are doing is creating an efficient way to damage the
environment.

iii) Human-centered technology – many critics of anthropocentrism will argue

that much technology places human life above all other forms of life. The
industrial revolution is a prime example. Humans felt the need to
21
 industrialize and modernize to better their lives, but at the cost of the
environment and non-human animal life.

iv) Human rights discourse – much of the human rights discourse assumes that
human rights are the highest or most important thing in the world, trumping
even non-human rights. More often than not negatives looking to run an
anthro K will read your impacts to human rights looking for phrases like
"Human rights must come before all else" and run the link arguing your
discourse places human rights above non-human animal rights.

Implications
As far as the impact, or implication to the critique, most teams argue some sort of
extinction through human-centered thinking.

Anthropocentricism results in destruction of the planet

The last mass extinction has not yet been fully explained. Many scientists believe it to
have been the result of meteorites whose impact suddenly altered the global climate, but
no-one can be sure. In contrast, the cause of the present mass extinction is not in doubt:
human expansion. Homo sapiens are gutting the earth of biodiversity.

The lush natural world in which humans evolved is being rapidly transformed into a
largely prosthetic environment. Crucially, in any time span that is humanly relevant,
this loss of biodiversity is irreversible. True, life on earth recovered its richness after the
last great extinction; but only after about 10 million years had passed. Unless something
occurs to disrupt the trends underway, all future generations of human beings will live
in a world that is more impoverished biologically than it has been for eons.

Given the magnitude of this change, one would expect it to be at the center of public
debate. In fact, it is very little discussed. Organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund
press on with their invaluable work, and there are occasional reports of the destruction
of wilderness; but for the most part, politics and media debates go on as if nothing is
happening. There are many reasons for this peculiar state of affairs, including the
ingrained human habit of denying danger until its impact is imminent; but the chief
reason is that it has become fashionable to deny the reality of overpopulation.

In truth, the root cause of mass extinction is too many people. As Wilson puts it in his
book Consilience: "Population growth can justly be called the monster on the land". Yet
according to mainstream political parties and most environmental organizations, the
despoliation of the environment is mainly the result of flaws in human institutions. If we
are entering a desolate world, the reason is not that humans have become too numerous.

22
It is because injustice prevents proper use of the earth's resources. There is no such
thing as overpopulation.

Interestingly, this view is not accepted in many of the world's poor countries. China,
India, Egypt and Iran all have population programs, as have many other developing
nations. Opposition to population control is concentrated in rich parts of the world,
notably the US, where the Bush administration pursues a fundamentalist vendetta
against international agencies that provide family planning. It is understandable that
rich countries should reject the idea of overpopulation. In their use of resources, they
are themselves the most overpopulated. Their affluence depends on their appropriating
a hugely disproportionate share of the world's non-renewable resources. If they ever
face up to that reality, they will have to admit that their affluence is unsustainable.

Another reason for denying the reality of overpopulation is that the growth in human
numbers is extremely uneven. In some parts of the world, population is actually
declining. This is strikingly true in post-communist Russia. A precipitate fall in public
health and living standards has led to a virtually unprecedented population collapse,
which is set to accelerate further as an African-style AIDS die-off triggered by the
country's enormous numbers of intravenous drug users begins to take hold. In other
countries, such as Japan, Italy, and Spain, declining fertility is leading to zero or
negative population growth. Such examples have given currency to the silly notion that
overpopulation is no longer an issue - that, if anything, it is a slowdown in population
growth that we should be worrying about.

But while human numbers are falling in some parts of the world, in others they are
exploding. The population of the Gulf States will double in around 20 years - against a
background of nearly complete dependency on a single, depleting natural resource.
Again, despite China's admirable one-child policy, its population will go on growing for
much of this century. Globally, the human population will continue to rise for at least a
century - even if worldwide fertility falls to replacement level tomorrow. In 1940, there
were around two billion humans on the planet. Today, there are about six billion. Even
on conservative projections, there will be nearly eight billion by 2050.

Ecofeminism
Ecofeminism, also called ecological feminism, branch of feminism that examines
the connections between women and nature. Ecofeminism uses the basic feminist tenets
of equality between genders, a revaluing of non-patriarchal or nonlinear structures, and
a view of the world that respects organic processes, holistic connections, and the merits
of intuition and collaboration. To these notions ecofeminism adds both a commitment
to the environment and an awareness of the associations made between women and
nature.

23
Specifically, this philosophy emphasizes the ways both nature and women are treated
by patriarchal (or male-centred) society. Ecofeminists examine the effect of gender
categories in order to demonstrate the ways in which social norms exert unjust
dominance over women and nature. The philosophy also contends that those norms
lead to an incomplete view of the world, and its practitioners advocate
an alternative worldview that values the earth as sacred, recognizes humanity’s
dependency on the natural world, and embraces all life as valuable.

Characterization of Ecofeminist Philosophy

French feminist Françoise d'Eaubonne coined the term “ecological feminisme” in 1974
to call attention to women's potential to bring about an ecological revolution. Initially,
“ecofeminism” referred generically to a wide variety of “women-nature” connections,
often based in different disciplinary perspectives (such as History, Literary Criticism,
Political Science, Sociology, and Theology). This is important because ecofeminism did
not emerge as a distinctly philosophical position until the late 1980s and early- to mid
1990s.
Common-denominator characterization of “ecofeminist philosophy” is that it: (1)
explores the nature of the connections between the unjustified dominations of women
and nature; (2) critiques male-biased Western canonical philosophical views
(assumptions, concepts, claims, distinctions, positions, theories) about women and
nature; and (3) creates alternatives and solutions to such male-biased views.
Many ecofeminist philosophers distinguish between the oppression of women and the
(unjustified) domination of nature. They do so on the grounds that only those beings
that have such characteristics as rationality, cognitive capacity, or sentiency can be
oppressed. In Western contexts, nonhuman natural entities such as rocks, plants, rivers,
or (generically) nature are presumed to not have any such characteristics. As such,
unlike women, they cannot be oppressed (although they can be unjustly dominated).
3.2 Oppressive Conceptual Frameworks
A conceptual framework is a set of basic beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions that
shape and reflect how one sees oneself and one's world. Some conceptual frameworks
are oppressive. An oppressive conceptual framework is one that functions to explain,
maintain, and “justify” institutions, relationships and practices of unjustified
domination and subordination. When an oppressive conceptual framework
is patriarchal, it functions to justify the subordination of women by men.
Sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, and ethnocentrism are examples of what
Warren calls unjustified “isms of domination”. These isms of domination share
conceptual roots in five features of an oppressive conceptual framework. The first
feature is value-hierarchical, Up-Down thinking that attributes greater value to that
which is “Up” than to that which is “Down”. In canonical philosophy, value hierarchical

24
thinking (typically) puts men Up and women Down, culture Up and nature Down. By
attributing greater value to that which is higher, the Up-Down organization of reality
serves to legitimate inequality “when, in fact, prior to the metaphor of Up-Down, one
would have said only that there existed diversity”.
The second feature is oppositional (rather than complementary) and mutually
exclusive (rather than inclusive) value dualisms, which place greater value (status,
prestige) on one disjunct over the other. In canonical Western philosophy, the dualisms
of male versus female and culture versus nature have historically done this; they have
ascribed greater value to that which is identified with males or culture than to that
which is identified with females or nature. According to these value dualisms, it is better
to be male or culture-identified than to be female or nature-identified.
The third and fourth features of oppressive conceptual frameworks are that they
conceive of power and privilege in ways that systematically advantage the Ups over the
Downs (whether or not the Ups choose to exercise that power and privilege). In a
classist society, wealthy people have the power and privilege to mobilize resources to
self-determined ends. Sometimes this power and privilege enables the wealthy to not
notice the ways socioeconomic status is a significant challenge to equality of
opportunity. For example, poor people may be viewed as inferior, and thereby
undeserving of the same opportunities or rights of the wealthy, often on the grounds
that their poverty is “their own fault”.
The fifth and philosophically most important feature of an oppressive conceptual
framework is the “logic of domination”. This is the moral premise that superiority
justifies subordination. The logic of domination provides the (alleged) moral
justification for keeping Downs down. Typically this justification takes the form that the
Up has some characteristic (e.g., reason) that the Down lacks and by virtue of which the
subordination of the Down by the Up is justified.
3.3 Linguistic Perspectives
Ludwig Wittgenstein argues that the language one uses mirrors and reflects one's view
of oneself and the world—one's conceptual framework. According to ecofeminist
philosophers, language plays a key role in the formation of problematic concepts of
women, animals, and nature—concepts that reinforce the five features of an oppressive
conceptual framework and contribute to the “justification” of the dominations of
women, animals, and nature. Consider some examples of how language does this.
The English language animalizes and naturalizes women in cultural contexts where
women and nonhuman animals are already viewed as inferior to men and male-
identified culture. Women are referred to pejoratively as dogs, cats, catty, pussycats,
pussies, pets, bunnies, dumb bunnies, cows, sows, foxes, chicks, bitches, beavers, old
bats, old hens, old crows, queen bees, cheetahs, vixen, serpents, bird-brains, hare-

25
brains, elephants, and whales. Women cackle, go to hen parties, henpeck their
husbands, become old biddies (old hens no longer sexually attractive or able to
reproduce), and social butterflies. Animalizing women in a sexist (or, patriarchal)
culture that views animals as inferior to “humans” reinforces and attempts to legitimate
women's alleged inferior status to men (see Adams 1990; Joan Dunayer 1995; Warren
2000). Similarly, the English language feminizes nature in cultural contexts that view
women and nature as inferior to men and male-identified culture. Mother Nature (not
Father Nature) is raped, mastered, controlled, conquered, mined; her (not his) secrets
are penetrated, and her womb (men don't have one) is put into the service of the man of
science (not woman of science, or simply scientist). Virgin timber is felled, cut down.
Fertile (not potent) soil is tilled, and land that lies fallow is useless or barren, like a
woman unable to conceive a child.
In these examples, the exploitations of nature and animals are justified
by feminizing (not masculinizing) them; the exploitation of women is justified
by animalizing (not humanizing) and naturalizing (not “culturizing”) women. As Carol
Adams argues (1990), language that feminizes nature and naturalizes women describes,
reflects, and perpetuates unjustified patriarchal domination by failing to see the extent
to which the dominations of women, nonhuman animals, and nature are culturally (not
just metaphorically) analogous and sanctioned.
The point of these examples is not to claim that only females are denigrated by use of
animal or nature language. That would be false. In the English language, animal terms
also are used pejoratively against men. For example, men are called wolves, sharks,
skunks, snakes, toads, jackasses, old buzzards, and goats. Nor is it to claim that all uses
of animal or nature language are derogatory. That would also be false. In Western
culture, it is generally complimentary to describe someone as busy as a bee, eagle-eyed,
lion-hearted, or brave as a lion. Rather, the point is that, within patriarchal contexts,
the majority of animal and nature terms used to describe women, and the majority of
female terms used to describe animals and nature, function differently from the animal
and nature terms used to describe men. Within a patriarchal context, they function to
devalue women, animals, and nature in a way that reinforces the unjustified
dominations of all three.
3.4 Historical Perspectives
Historical perspectives on the causes of the unjustified dominations of women and
nature are conflicting and inconclusive. One of the earliest and most widely referenced
is ecofeminist historian Carolyn Merchant's perspective (Merchant 1980). Merchant
argues that the separation of culture from nature (or, the culture/nature dualism) is a
product of the scientific revolution. She describes two conflicting images of nature: an
older, Greek image of nature as organic, benevolent, nurturing female, and a newer,
“modern” (1500–1800s) image of nature as inert, dead, and mechanistic. Merchant

26
argues that the historical shift from an organic to a mechanistic model helped to justify
the exploitation of the earth by conceiving of it as inert matter. For example, mining was
prohibited in antiquity because it was thought to be “mining the earth's womb”; early
Greek metaphors of nature as alive and “nurturing female” supported the view that
mining was wrong. According to Merchant, a conception of nature as inert matter
removed moral barriers to mining that were in place when nature was conceived as
organic, nurturing female. For many ecofeminist philosophers, Merchant's historical
perspective informs their analyses of the deep conceptual roots of the unjustified
dominations of women and nature.
3.5 Socioeconomic Perspectives
According to Marxist-informed “materialist ecofeminism”, socioeconomic conditions
are central to the interconnected dominations of women and nature. The system of
predominantly male ownership of the means and forces of production results in a male-
biased allocation and distribution of a society's economic resources that systematically
disadvantages women economically and exploits nature.
3.6 Epistemological Perspectives
Ecofeminist epistemology extends feminist epistemology's concerns with ways that
gender influences conceptions of knowledge, the knower, and methods of inquiry and
justification. It does so by showing how these concerns involve women-nature
connections.
An ecofeminist epistemology also shows that a gendered environmental perspective is
important to understanding epistemological methods of inquiry and forms of
justification concerning women and nature. Consider orthodox Western forestry. Too
often it has assumed that activities that fall outside the realm of commercial fiber
production are less important than those that fall inside that realm. Yet the latter are
precisely the activities that rural women in many parts of Africa and India engage in on
a daily basis. Failure to understand the importance of these activities often makes
women “invisible”. This invisibility helps explains why many orthodox, Western
foresters literally do not see trees that are used as hedgerows or living fence poles; trees
that provide materials for basketry, dyes, medicines, or decorations; trees that provide
sites for honey barrels; trees that provide fodder; trees that have religious significance;
trees that provide shade; or trees that provide human food.
Because many foresters literally do not see the enormous variety in the use of trees, they
frequently do not see the vast number of species that are useful … that men and women
may have very different uses for the same tree or may use different trees for different
purposes.

When Western foresters literally do not see these activities, they also do not see different
methods women have for using different trees for different purposes. They do not see
27
gendered environmental knowledge that is based on what local women do and know
best.
3.7 Political Perspectives
Feminist political philosophy critiques ways in which traditional understandings of the
political world, including the nature of the public sphere, freedom, democracy, political
speech, solidarity, and participation, fail to adequately address feminist concerns.
Ecofeminist political philosophy tends to expand these critiques to include ecologically
informed visions for conceptualizing politics, political analyses, and the nature of
democracy.
During the 1980s, women's activism in a variety of social movements—the
environmental, peace, animal liberation, and environmental justice movements—came
together and a new form of activism emerged, ecofeminist political activism. By the
1990s, this political activism had given rise to a diversity of ecofeminisms: liberal,
Marxist, socialist, radical, cultural/spiritual, and social ecofeminisms. These different
ecofeminisms are mentioned here because each is grounded in a different ecofeminist
political perspective—liberalism, Marxism, socialism, radical feminism, indigenous and
spiritual politics, anarchism, and social ecology. And each political perspective provides
a different answer to questions about the nature of ecofeminist activism, green politics,
and ecofeminism political philosophy.
3.8 Ethical Perspectives
“Ecofeminist philosophical ethics” (henceforth, “ecofeminist ethics”) is the sub-field of
ecofeminist philosophy that has received the most scholarly attention. (It has already
been discussed in connection with animal ethics, Leopold's land ethics, and deep
ecology.) Ecofeminist ethics is a kind of feminist ethics. As such, it involves a twofold
commitment to critique male bias in ethics wherever it occurs and to develop ethics that
are not male-biased. As a feminist ethic, it also involves articulation of values (e.g.,
values of care, empathy, and friendship) often lost or underplayed in mainstream
Western ethics. What makes its critiques of traditional ethical theories “ecofeminist” is
that they focus on women-nature connections.
There is not one definition of ecofeminist ethics. However, there are some themes that
run through ecofeminist ethics. These themes are about the nature of ecofeminist ethics
generally, not about any particular ecofeminist ethic.

CONTEMPORARY ENVIRONMENT ETHICS

Although environmental ethicists often try to distance themselves from the
anthropocentrism embedded in traditional ethical views they also quite often draw their

28
theoretical resources from traditional ethical systems and theories. Consider the
following two basic moral questions: (1) What kinds of thing are intrinsically valuable,
good or bad? (2) What makes an action right or wrong?

Consequentialist ethical theories

Consequentialism is a theory that says whether something is good or bad depends on its
outcomes.

An action that brings about more benefit than harm is good, while an action that causes
more harm than benefit is not. The most famous version of this theory is utilitarianism.

Although there are references to this idea in the works of ancient philosopher Epicurus,
it’s closely associated with English philosopher Jeremy Bentham.

Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism focussed on which actions were most likely to make
people happy. If happiness was the experience of pleasure without pain, the most ethical
actions were ones that caused the most possible happiness and the least possible pain.

Consequentialist ethical theories consider intrinsic “value” / “disvalue” or “goodness” /

“badness” to be more fundamental moral notions than “rightness” / “wrongness”, and
maintain that whether an action is right/wrong is determined by whether its
consequences are good/bad. From this perspective, answers to question (2) are
informed by answers to question (1). For instance, utilitarianism, a paradigm case of
consequentialism, regards pleasure (or, more broadly construed, the satisfaction of
interest, desire, and/or preference) as the only intrinsic value in the world, whereas pain
(or the frustration of desire, interest, and/or preference) is the only intrinsic disvalue,
and maintains that right actions are those that would produce the greatest balance of
pleasure over pain.
As the utilitarian focus is the balance of pleasure and pain as such, the question of to
whom a pleasure or pain belongs is irrelevant to the calculation and assessment of the
rightness or wrongness of actions. Hence, the eighteenth century utilitarian Jeremy
Bentham (1789), and later Peter Singer (1993), have argued that the interests of all the
sentient beings (i.e., beings who are capable of experiencing pleasure or pain)—
including non-human ones—affected by an action should be taken equally into
consideration in assessing the action. Furthermore, rather like Routley (see section 2
above), Singer argues that the anthropocentric privileging of members of the species
Homo sapiens is arbitrary, and that it is a kind of “speciesism” as unjustifiable as sexism
and racism. Singer regards the animal liberation movement as comparable to the
liberation movements of women and people of colour. Unlike the environmental
philosophers who attribute intrinsic value to the natural environment and its
inhabitants, Singer and utilitarians in general attribute intrinsic value to the experience

29
of pleasure or interest satisfaction as such, not to the beings who have the experience.
Similarly, for the utilitarian, non-sentient objects in the environment such as plant
species, rivers, mountains, and landscapes, all of which are the objects of moral concern
for environmentalists, are of no intrinsic but at most instrumental value to the
satisfaction of sentient beings. Furthermore, because right actions, for the utilitarian,
are those that maximize the overall balance of interest satisfaction over frustration,
practices such as whale-hunting and the killing of an elephant for ivory, which cause
suffering to non-human animals, might turn out to be right after all: such practices
might produce considerable amounts of interest-satisfaction for human beings, which,
on the utilitarian calculation, outweigh the non-human interest-frustration involved. As
the result of all the above considerations, it is unclear to what extent a utilitarian ethic
can also be an environmental ethic. This point may not so readily apply to a wider
consequentialist approach, which attributes intrinsic value not only to pleasure or
satisfaction, but also to various objects and processes in the natural environment.

Deontological ethical theories

Deontological ethical theories, in contrast, maintain that whether an action is right or
wrong is for the most part independent of whether its consequences are good or bad.
From the deontologist perspective, there are several distinct moral rules or duties (e.g.,
“not to kill or otherwise harm the innocent”, “not to lie”, “to respect the rights of others”,
“to keep promises”), the observance/violation of which is intrinsically right/wrong; i.e.,
right/wrong in itself regardless of consequences.

Deontology is an ethical theory that says actions are good or bad according to a clear set
of rules.

Its name comes from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. Actions that align with these
rules are ethical, while actions that don’t aren’t. This ethical theory is most closely
associated with German philosopher, Immanuel Kant.

His work on personhood is an example of deontology in practice. Kant believed the

ability to use reason was what defined a person.

From an ethical perspective, personhood creates a range of rights and obligations

because every person has inherent dignity – something that is fundamental to and is
held in equal measure by each and every person.

This dignity creates an ethical ‘line in the sand’ that prevents us from acting in certain
ways either toward other people or toward ourselves (because we have dignity as well).
Most importantly, Kant argues that we may never treat a person merely as a means to an
end (never just as a resource or instrument).

30
Kant’s ethics isn’t the only example of deontology. Any system involving a clear set of
rules is a form of deontology, which is why some people call it a “rule-based ethic”.
The Ten Commandments is an example, as is the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.

Most deontologists say there are two different kinds of ethical duties, perfect
duties and imperfect duties. A perfect duty is inflexible. “Do not kill innocent people” is
an example of a perfect duty. You can’t obey it a little bit – either you kill innocent
people or you don’t. There’s no middle-ground.

Imperfect duties do allow for some middle ground. “Learn about the world around you”
is an imperfect duty because we can all spend different amounts of time on education
and each be fulfilling our obligation. How much we commit to imperfect duties is up to
us.

Our reason for doing the right thing (which Kant called a maxim) is also important.
We should do our duty for no other reason than because it’s the right thing to do.

Obeying the rules for self-interest, because it will lead to better consequences or even
because it makes us happy is not, for deontologists, an ethical reason for acting. We
should be motivated by our respect for the moral law itself.

Deontologists require us to follow universal rules we give to ourselves. These rules must
be in accordance with reason – in particular, they must be logically consistent and not
give rise to contradictions.

It’s worth mentioning that deontology is often seen as being strongly opposed
to consequentialism. This is because in emphasising the intention to act in accordance
with our duties, deontology believes the consequences of our actions have no ethical
relevance at all – a similar sentiment to that captured in the phrase “Let justice be done,
though the heavens may fall”.

The appeal of deontology lies in its consistency. By applying ethical duties to all people
in all situations the theory is readily applied to most practical situations. By focussing on
a person’s intentions, it also places ethics entirely within our control – we can’t always
control or predict the outcomes of our actions, but we are in complete control of our
intentions.

Others criticise deontology for being inflexible. By ignoring what’s at stake in terms of
consequences, some say it misses a serious element of ethical decision-making. De-
emphasising consequences has other implications too – can it make us guilty of ‘crimes

31
of omission’? Kant, for example, argued it would be unethical to lie about the location of
our friend, even to a person trying to murder them! For many, this seems intuitively
false.

One way of resolving this problem is through an idea called threshold deontology, which
argues we should always obey the rules unless in an emergency situation, at which point
we should revert to a consequentialist approach.

When asked to justify an alleged moral rule, duty or its corresponding right,
deontologists may appeal to the intrinsic value of those beings to whom it applies. For
instance, “animal rights” advocate Tom Regan (1983) argues that those animals with
intrinsic value (or what he calls “inherent value”) have the moral right to respectful
treatment, which then generates a general moral duty on our part not to treat them as
mere means to other ends. We have, in particular, a prima facie moral duty not to harm
them. Regan maintains that certain practices (such as sport or commercial hunting, and
experimentation on animals) violate the moral right of intrinsically valuable animals to
respectful treatment. Such practices, he argues, are intrinsically wrong regardless of
whether or not some better consequences ever flow from them. Exactly which animals
have intrinsic value and therefore the moral right to respectful treatment? Regan’s
answer is: those that meet the criterion of being the “subject-of-a-life”. To be such a
subject is a sufficient (though not necessary) condition for having intrinsic value, and to
be a subject-of-a-life involves, among other things, having sense-perceptions, beliefs,
desires, motives, memory, a sense of the future, and a psychological identity over time.
Some authors have extended concern for individual well-being further, arguing for the
intrinsic value of organisms achieving their own good, whether those organisms are
capable of consciousness or not. Paul Taylor’s version of this view (1981 and 1986),
which we might call biocentrism, is a somewhat deontological example. He argues that
each individual living thing in nature—whether it is an animal, a plant, or a micro-
organism—is a “teleological-center-of-life” having a good or well-being of its own which
can be enhanced or damaged, and that all individuals who are teleological-centers-of life
have equal intrinsic value (or what he calls “inherent worth”) which entitles them to
moral respect. Furthermore, Taylor maintains that the intrinsic value of wild living
things generates a prima facie moral duty on our part to preserve or promote their goods
as ends in themselves, and that any practices which treat those beings as mere means
and thus display a lack of respect for them are intrinsically wrong.
Subsequently the distinction between these two traditional approaches has taken its
own specific form of development in environmental philosophy. Instead of pitting
conceptions of value against conceptions of rights, it has been suggested that there may
be two different conceptions of intrinsic value in play in discussion about environmental
good and evil. One the one side, there is the intrinsic value of states of affairs that are to
32
be promoted—and this is the focus of the consequentialist thinkers. On the other
(deontological) hand there is the intrinsic values of entities to be respected. These two
different foci for the notion of intrinsic value still provide room for fundamental
argument between deontologists and consequentialist to continue, albeit in a somewhat
modified form.

33