Our classical humanist ethic requires that all duty attach itself to an individual “self”, a value-able entity with rights and duties of its own. But nature operates on a different basis: “there are no rights in the wild, and nature is indifferent to the welfare of particular animals” (Rolston, p.75). In order to formulate an autonomous environmental ethics, then, we must be able to move beyond the humanist focus on the self, towards a new source of value and a new type of value. In this essay, I intend to examine the idea of value in nature, drawing especially on Holmes Rolston III’s concept of systemic value and ecosytemic ethics and Aldo Leopold’s land aesthetic (as presented by J. Baird Callicott). There are striking similarities between these two accounts that seem to point to an ethical/aesthetic consensus that it is the unity, interconnectedness, and interdependence of nature that is to be valued. A move beyond the “self” is a move towards the system, the biotic community. However, I also want to examine the potential challenges posed to the idea of ecosystemic ethics by Leopold’s noumenon. Rolston’s argument has three parts: first, that ecosystems are the “fundamental unit[s] of survival,” second, that given this, “all value is generated within the geosystemic and ecosystemic pyramid,” and third, that this generated value is neither instrumental nor intrinsic, but systemic (Rolston, pgs. 82, 86, 84). We will examine each in part and see how Rolston’s argument matches up with Leopold’s. Both Leopold and Rolston realize that nature is not isolated; rather organisms are “interlocked in one humming community of cooperations and competitions, one biota” (Callicott, p.138). There is a “rare,” “orchestrated,” music to ... ... middle of paper ... ...ying point of Rolston’s systemic ethics and Leopold’s land aesthetic is clear: humans must respond to nature on the level of the ecosystem and not just on the level of the individual organism or even at the level of the species. This is not always easy since the ecological interconnections of nature are not readily apparent to the human senses. It is possible to attack ecosystemic ethics from Evernden’s nature-as-miracle standpoint: what is important is not our faith in “abstractions” (ecosystems), but our sense experience of particulars (frogs) (Evernden, p.198). Still, there is something compelling and instinctually right about a focus on how it all fits together, and Rolston seems correct when he urges that “no environmental ethics has found its way on Earth until it finds an ethic for the biotic communities in which all destinies are entwined (Rolston, p.81).
Human beings have made much of purity and are repelled by blood, pollution, putrefaction (Snyder, 119). Nature is sacred. We are enjoying it and destroying it simultaneously. Sometimes it is easier to see charming things than the decomposition hidden in the “shade”.We only notice the beautiful side of nature, which are benefits that nature brings us: food, fresh air, water, landscapes. But we forget the other side, the rottenness of human destruction. That is how human beings create “the other side of the sacred”. We cut trees for papers, but we fail to recognize that the lack of trees is the lack of fresh air. Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge “the other side of the
Although Leopold’s love of great expanses of wilderness is readily apparent, his book does not cry out in defense of particular tracts of land about to go under the axe or plow, but rather deals with the minutiae, the details, of often unnoticed plants and animals, all the little things that, in our ignorance, we have left out of our managed acreages but which must be present to add up to balanced ecosystems and a sense of quality and wholeness in the landscape.
Leopold would most likely approve of the work being done to preserve Gorongosa National Park and would agree with Wilson in that nature is our home and we should treat it as such, but Leopold, unlike Wilson, argues that it is our moral obligation, and not just our pleasure, to respect nature. Additionally, Wilson seems to focus specifically on the plants and animals that make up an ecosystem, but Leopold extends his focus to non-living components such as soil and water because they are instrumental in maintaining the integrity of land communities. Leopold might urge Wilson to make sure that he is not simply educating people at Gorongosa, but really help them genuinely understand land ethics. This way, humans can evolve a sense of praise and approval for preserving the integrity and beauty of the biotic community (262), and social disapproval for doing the exact
Aldo Leopold’s essay, “Thinking Like a Mountain” shines light on a prominent issue amongst the ecosystem concerning the importance of a single organism. Leopold attempts to help the reader understand the importance of all animals in the ecosystem by allowing a wolf, deer, and a mountain to represent the ecosystem and how changes amongst them cause adverse effects on each other. Leopold recounts of the killing of a wolf and seeing a "fierce green fire" die in its eyes, this became a transformational moment in his life causing him to rethink the beliefs he had grown up with. By connecting the wolf’s death to the health of the mountain he was inspired to promote the idea that all predators matter to the ecosystem. He believed then that all native organisms are critical to the health of the land, if any change occurs in one part of the circuit, many parts will have to adjust to it and if something is removed the consequence can be detrimental. The essay highlights the idea that all living things on earth have a purpose and that everything is interdependent of each other.
In the spirit of Karen Warren, Gould's perspective on environmentalism 'feels right' to me, as I can connect with acts of respect and benevolence towards humans and can easily extend that feeling to the rest of the earth (especially on a personal level where I see the golden rule as the basis for my religious beliefs). However, upon closer examination, I find the suggestion to 'just follow the golden rule' as an environmental ethic problematic when examined in a practical, non-idealized light. Harkening back to the problems encountered in previous discussions of biocentric and ecocentric ethics, I am troubled by the potential outcomes of an environmental ethic such as this.
John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and Aldo Leopold all have moderately different views and ideas about the environment in terms of its worth, purpose, use and protection. At one extensively non-anthropocentric extreme, Muir’s views and ideas placed emphasis on protecting environmental areas as a moral obligation. That is to say, Muir believed that wilderness environments should be used for divine transcendence, spiritual contemplation, as a place for repenting sins and obtaining devotional healing, rather than being used for exploitative materialistic greed and destructive consumption, such as industrialism, mining, and lumbering. At the other extreme, anthropocentric, Pinchot views nature simply as natural resources. In other words, nature is explicitly
In “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments,” Thomas Hill tries to explain why destroying nature is morally inappropriate. His main argument is that rather than asking whether this action is wrong or right, we should ask what kind of person would destroy nature. Beforehand, one view is that since plants have right or interests, one should not violate their interest by destroying them. But Hill’s view is that we cannot address the interests of plants in order to criticize those who destroy the nature, because this approach is good for sentient beings. In this essay I am going to examine whether sentient is a necessary condition for interests to be counted? My upshot is that Hill’s view is correct.
Lawrence Buell’s four criteria are easily embraced as they are highly applicable to what we consider nature writings. For instance, one of the criteria suggest it should provide evidence that the consequences of the environment affect the interests of other aspects of the world beyond just human interests. For example, in ...
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
Analyzing human obligation pertaining to all that is not man made, apart from humans, we discover an assortment of concerns, some of which have been voiced by philosophers such as Tom Regan, Peter Singer and Aldo Leopold. Environmentally ethical ideals hold a broad spectrum of perspectives that, not only attempt to identify a problem, but also focus on how that problem is addressed through determining what is right and wrong.
From the lone hiker on the Appalachian Trail to the environmental lobby groups in Washington D.C., nature evokes strong feelings in each and every one of us. We often struggle with and are ultimately shaped by our relationship with nature. The relationship we forge with nature reflects our fundamental beliefs about ourselves and the world around us. The works of timeless authors, including Henry David Thoreau and Annie Dillard, are centered around their relationship to nature.
Leopold defends his position the advent of a new ethical development, one that deals with humans’ relations to the land and its necessity. This relationship is defined as the land ethic, this concept holds to a central component referred to as the ecological consciousness. The ecological consciousness is not a vague ideal, but one that is not recognized in modern society. It reflects a certainty of individual responsibility for the health and preservation of the land upon which we live, and all of its components. If the health of the land is upheld, its capacity of self-renewal and regeneration is maintained as well. To date, conservation has been our sole effort to understand and preserve this capacity. Leopold holds that if the mainstream embraces his ideals of a land ethic and an ecological consciousness, the beauty, stability and integrity of our world will be preserved.
In Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor develops the following four elements of the biocentric outlook on nature:
Throughout history, many individuals wish to discover and explain the relationship between nature and society, however, there are many complexities relating to this relationship. The struggle to understand how nature and society are viewed and connected derives from the idea that there are many definitions of what nature is. The Oxford dictionary of Human Geography (2003), explains how nature is difficult to define because it can be used in various contexts as well as throughout different time and spaces. As a result of this, the different understandings of what nature is contributes to how the nature society relationship is shaped by different processes. In order to better understand this relation there are many theorists and philosophers
* Shirk, Evelyn. “New Dimensions in Ethics: Ethics and the Environment.” Ethics and the Environment. Proc. of Conf. on Ethics and the Environment, April 1985, Long Island University. Ed. Richard E. Hart. Lanham: University Press of America, 1992. 1-10.