1. 5.2.2008Marjukka Laakso Environmental ethics Environment = everything around humans which is not strictly man-made (wild nature, fields, cities, ditches) Environmental ethics: how one should treat natural entities; what sort of relationship with nature humans should have; moral standing of environmental entities Environmental philosophy: what humans can know about environmental entities, what these entities can know themselves (are they rational like humans); modes of existing (e.g. ecosystems)

2. 5.2.2008Marjukka Laakso Ethics Descriptive ethics = how humans actually behave/ what issues they respect and appreciate Normative ethics –Are there universal moral rules any good person should comply? How should a person to behave? How should environmental entities treated or be taken into account morally? Grounds for moral concern, examples: Rationality Reciprocity Sentience Duty Virtue Utility

3. 5.2.2008Marjukka Laakso Value dichotomies – theoretical disputes in environmental ethics Intrinsic – instrumental value –Moral status of environment in relation to humans: if intrinsic, environmental entities are respected as themselves and may even have rights Anthropocentrism – ecocentrism –Is environment valued only for its worth for humans or are natural entities valued as such?

4. 5.2.2008Marjukka Laakso Dichotomies … Individualism – holism –Is it an individual or society / species which is prioritised? Conservation of species versus well-being of an individual animal? E.g. zoos Moral monism – moral pluralism –Universal principles versus particular, pragmatic rules for new situations E.g. is the Kantian principle applicable to all situations? Categorical imperative: ”Treat persons always as ends themselves.”

5. 5.2.2008Marjukka Laakso Criticism of traditional ethical theories Only individuals have a moral standing –Ecosystems or processes in nature are excluded –Animals have only instrumental value Rights-based theories: –Rights entitle one to make justified claims, but who are obliged to fulfil these rights, e.g., in the case of animals? Trad. environmental theories: only ”important” parts of natural system has a moral standing, like mountains and animals. Excludes often ditches, parks, lower insects as secondary

6. 5.2.2008Marjukka Laakso Environmental ethical theories 1. Conservationism Ethics of wise use environment = resource for human action Instirumental value, efficiency Gifford Pinchot (1865-1946): 2. Preservationism Nature is preserved untouched by humans Wild nature as intrinsic, but: not all natural entities are valued equally Henry D. Thoreau (1817-1862): Walden, The Main Woods, Cape Cod John Muir (1838-1914): Our National Parks (1909) 3. Moral extensionism Moral evaluation and ethical theories are simply extended to non-human animals and natural entities: animal rights Singer, Routley, Callicott Individuals have intirinsic value

7. 5.2.2008Marjukka Laakso Environmental ethical theories 4. Biocentrism Life as the criterion of value; respect for all forms of life Albert Scweitzer (1875-1965):The Philosophy of Civilization (1949): all life forms have equal value K. Goodpaster: different life forms have different value (moral meaningfulness) 5. Ecocentrism All ecological entities, systems and processes are to be preserved Human life is valued an the basis of its relevant contribution to the integrity of biosphere; humans are members of the society called Earth Biotic equality = all entities including inorganic nature have intrinsic value ’extreme preservationist view’ Aldo Leopold (1887-1948): A Sand County Almanac (1949)  Land-ethic Arne Naess: deep ecology (Ecology, Community and Lifestyle 1989) James Lovelock & Lynn Margulis: A New Look at Life on Earth" 1979

8. 5.2.2008Marjukka Laakso Challenges of environmental evaluation In evaluating environmental consequences of an action we must take into account: –humans –non-human animals –holistic entities like ecosystems and species –future (human and non-human) generations Environmental harm as cumulative result by multiple actors during a long period of time Probabilities, risks Action causing environmental harm is often useful in other ways: e.g. employment, economical well-being…

9. 5.2.2008Marjukka Laakso Some philosophical dilemmas If all animals are of same value as humans, why only humans are required to behave morally responsibly? What does it mean “to take ethically into consideration”? What does moral standing actually mean? –Is an experience by an animal ever understandable to humans? How do we translate an experience of an animal into human experience? –If holistic entities are intrinsically valuable, how do we take into account individuals of that whole? ’No ought from is’ – prevalent state of matters does not tell anything about normative claims in the situation. It still remains to be analysed, how to act and who is responsible.

10. 5.2.2008Marjukka Laakso Summing up: environmental ethics A moral actor /agent –Can other entities than humans be considered as morally responsible? E.g., compare with punishment. –Anthropogenic theory of value? Moral action –Intentionally and knowingly caused consequences? Object in focus –A human or an animal? A whole or an individual? Existing or future-to-be? –Moral considerability (K. Goodpaster, 1978) Justification –Consequences, sentience, utility, virtue, duty, or contracts? E.g., whose utility? Consequences on whom?