As Environmental Ethics has evolved from the ancient Greek and Romans, through the Medieval philosophies, and now to our modern environmental policies, the anthropocentrism of the environmental worldviews has dramatically increased. Ancient ethics supported by Pre-Socratics and Plato, took the stance of Environmental Wisdom, which is Biosphere and ecosystem centered. Medieval ethics, exemplified in St. Augustine and St. Francis of Assisi, began to lean toward the Stewardship worldview, which is more biocentric (life-centered). The modern world view which emerged in the 20thcentury is Planetary Management, which views nature as a resource that humans can and should use for our benefit.
Donald Hughes, in several essays and papers, describes the environmental ethics of ancient philosophers and how their worldviews transitioned into medieval worldviews. He says that ancient Greeks and saw nature as a direct and sacred manifestation of the Gods’ activities (Hughes 2014, p47). For this reason, all of nature was granted moral standing on the grounds of positive human activity with/treatment of the environment attracted positive attention from the Gods, who were basically the personifications of nature and morality guidelines. The worldview of Environmental Wisdom holds that humans are part of/entirely dependent upon nature and encourages conservation of resources to sustain the earth and maintain the natural balance of the biosphere
The ancient Roman ethics was also influenced by the divine like the Greeks, but with a much stronger agricultural element. Both Greeks and Romans, as polytheistic cultures, worshiped, revered, and actively tried to honor many Gods who held dominion over various parts of nature. The Greek goddess Artemis (or Diana, as called by the Romans), is a perfect example of the prevailing ancient worldview, as she best embodies the ethical practice of environmental conservation and the protection of all wildlife. Artemis, a huntress, is one of the oldest iconographic figures, and is also referred to as “the lady of wild things”, or “mistress of beasts” (Hughes, 1990, p191). The act of worshipping Artemis involved treating all life (as an individual or species) as sacred, as well as respectfully utilizing the land and keeping natural sanctuaries. The respect Artemis demanded for life still permitted humans to hunt, as long as the loss of animal life was justified for nourishment or protection from death. Civil Rules and religious rituals enforced kindness to wildlife and prevented needless slaughter and desecration of all of the earth- Artemis’ domain. This Greek cosmology views nature anthropomorphically, but the introduction of Pre-Socratic philosophies began to progressively rationalize the importance of a balance in nature beyond myths.
This development takes the environmental stewardship worldview into Pythagorean ethics, which emphasizes harmony and ecological balance in all of nature through the practice of conservation, like Greek/Roman ethics. Pythagorean ethics takes kinship between non-human and human life one step further, prohibiting eating anything that has been killed or sacrificed because the human soul is everlasting and reincarnates into the body of another animal upon death (anything “that has had life”) (Hughes 1980, p195). Pythagorean ethics justifies this genuine reverence through the notion that living things share common ancestors- a “natural history”-, which is a more ecological based perspective over a theological perspective. At the root of Greek, Roman, and environmental ethics is the influence of the Environmental Wisdom worldview which gives equal value to the life of all organisms.
As philosophy continued to develop into the Medieval period, the Greek “natural history”, or inter-connectedness, was re-stated in Theocentric, Sacramentalist terms which describe nature as a communion with God/the transcendent (Adams 82). St. Augustine and St. Francis were two supporters of this medieval ethic, where the essential goodness of nature is founded in the belief that it is a gift from a good and virtuous creator. Humans should use the resources of the earth in moderation, in accordance with both the environmental wisdom and stewardship worldviews. (Hughes 1996, p316). All nature has intrinsic value (in this case because of its divine creation), but the medieval school is unique to the stewardship worldview in that it is slightly more anthropocentric, as the need to care for the earth comes from an ethical responsibility dictated by theological virtues, not a responsibility dictated by nature’s complete interdependence.
This takes us into modern environmental ethics, which favors the scientific laws of nature without any theological/mythological aspect that gives nature moral standing. The views of Rene Descartes exemplify the anthropocentric, mechanistic views of the modern Planetary Management worldview. He holds that the world is made of two types of substances: conscious minds, and an external material world. While animals and wildlife have varying capacities, for nutrition, growth, movement, and sensation, humans are uniquely able to reason (Wee, p213). That capability to reason is what gives human beings the power to use all of nature as they wish, as he considers nature to be dead matter that possesses no moral standing for its own sake beyond human use.
A point of contention between Descartes dualistic, mechanistic view is that he bases it on humanity’s unique capacity to reason, while other environmental ethicists like Peter Singer argue that the fact that animals can feel pleasure and pain is enough to justify moral consideration in an environmental ethic. Other ethicists who follow a modern Environmental Wisdom Worldview, like Aldo Leopold, argue for the moral standing of nature because of its interdependence and connectedness. His elevation of human consciousness as a justification for abusing the earth is exploitative of the earth’s resources, and could lead to over exploitation to suit human pleasures beyond human necessities (Descartes, p4). Through these mechanisms, over-exploitation is a serious danger to our current environment.
Word Count: 1218
2 Line Discussion Question: Descartes assumes that humans are the only animals capable of reasoning because we cannot prove the presence of a thinking soul in animals beyond what they do as a product of their organs/corporeal functions, and also because animals cannot communicate to us about anything that is not a mechanical function. Is it falsely anthropocentric to assume that because they cannot communicate deeper thoughts to humans, that they cannot communicate them to each other?
Citations:
Adams, Madonna R. “Augustine and Love of the Environment”. Thinking about the Environment: Our Debt to the Classical and Medieval Past. Ed. Robinson, T.M., Westra, Laura. Lexington Books. 2002. P73-79.
Descartes, Rene. “Animals are Machines”. Environmental Ethics: Divergence and Convergence. Ed. Armstrong, S.J., Botzleer, R.G.New York: McGraw-Hill. 1993. P281-285.
Carone, Gabriela Roxana. “Plato and the Environment”. Environmental Ethics, Vol. 20, iss. 2. 1998.
Egerton, Frank N. “Changing Concepts of the Balance of Nature”. The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 48, No. 2. The University of Chicago Press. 1973. P322-350.
Hughes, J. Donald. “Artemis: Goddess of Conservation”. Forest & Conservation History. Vol 34, No. 4. Forest Hill Society. 1990. P191-197.
Hughes, J. Donald. “Conepts of the Natural World”. Environmental Problems of the Ancient Greeks and Romans. John’s Hopkins University Press. 2014.
Hughes, J. Donald. “Francis of Assisi and the Diversity of Creation”. Environmental Ethics. Vol 18, No. 3. 1996. P311-320.
Hughes, J. Donald. “The Environmental Ethics of Pythagoreans”. University of Denver colloquium: “Earthday X: On the Humanities and Ecological Consciousness”. University of Denver. 1980.
Wee, Cecilia. “Descartes, Rene”. Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. P213-214.
Environmental Ethics 
Leave a comment