William O. Douglas's Dissent In Sierra Club V. Morton

Ethics of Environmental Protection: Nature Revisited

While researching environmental writings, there are two particular texts that may strike one as remarkable examples of environmental justice and personal responsibility. These are William O. Douglas’s “Dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton”, which focuses more on environmental activism, and Alice Walker’s essay “Everything Is a Human Being” that stresses the idea of nature itself retaliating, in a way, for being abused by the human race. In both cases, the environmental ideas provided by the writers hold man accountable for disrespecting and abusing nature. According to the authors, this behavior arises from the urban American background where industrial (as well as personal) gain comes first.

In “dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton”, Douglas poses the following question: if a ship has a legal personality, for whatever purpose, why is it that inanimate objects such as the river, an organism sustaining living forms itself, (e.g. fish) do not have the legal right to defend themselves against the threat of destruction? In order for nature to stop suffering “the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life” (Douglas 356), it is essential to him that nature’s voice is heard in the courtroom. It is essential that nature’s voice is heard especially by those who know its values and wonders and care most about it. The point is that they get mobilized and speak for the ecological community and defend its rights “before they [the inanimate objects] are destroyed” (357). This idea seems quite beneficial, considering that slightly changing the perspective of a group of people can actually make a big difference in the future of the society these people belong to. This is essentially what his dissent is about, calling for public engagement, promoting the idea of “joining hands in an overall effort to keep our [American] land bright and shining” (Sowards

Douglas considered the United States to be “nature’s nation” (Sowards 170), with so much depending on its abundant land and its wilderness, the preservation of which is the responsibility of those who have a “meaningful relation” (Douglas 356) to them. This is a key idea in his conservation politics (Douglas was fighting for public access to decision-making throughout his career) that also supported the belief that the American system at the time was favorable to the interests of the industry rather than the public interest. Even “"public interest" has so many differing shades of meaning as to be quite meaningless on the environmental front” (Douglas 375) he claims; thus he gives the impression that authorities responsible for public well-being often confuse their personal interest with what is communally beneficial. This suggests that even spokesmen in favor of the inanimate objects might actually be manipulated by agencies who care to promote industrial sort of interests. (One such interest was the building of a ski resort in Mineral King which Douglas’ dissent cared to obstruct.) It is those injustices that Douglas tries to eliminate by supporting the idea that nature should be granted legal personhood, in a similar way to Walker’s attempting to awaken environmental