According to Arne Naess in ““The Shallow and the Deep, Long Range Ecology Movements: A Summary”, two fields of thought in the modern Ecology movement are competing for the attention of the scientific and ethical communities. He distinguishes between these two movements, and summarizes them as Deep Ecology and Shallow Ecology. Shallow Ecology has a narrower focus and scope of interest, concerned primarily with the fight against unnecessary resource depletion and pollution. Shallow Ecology’s concern is limited to the effect that such depletion and pollution of the environment will have on humanity’s health and prosperity, specifically humans in developed and advanced countries and regions (Naess 1973).
The Deep Ecology movement, on the other hand, has a much larger scope of preservation interest and is rooted in more complex principles of Environmental Ethics. At the core of Deep Ecology is respect for all forms of life, a focus on complex diversity of types of life and beneficial cooperation between them (instead of unnecessary exploitation). Opposition to the destruction of the Environment in this field of thought is not limited to the potential negative effects on humans, human culture, and human capacity to thrive, but extends equal import to the animal and environmental ability to thrive separate from their position as human resources. Additionally, the Deep Ecology movement is opposed to the sentiment that the efforts to preserve the environment should be stronger in already developed countries where humans are already benefiting from abundant resources.
The two movements demonstrate varying levels of Anthropocentrism. The Shallow Ecology movement falls under the category of Strong Anthropocentrism, as seen through its concern for environmental preservation through an ethically narrower “humanity first” lens. Under this description, William Baxter might be considered as a Shallow Ecologist because of his free market environmental ethics where efforts to conserve the environment should result in greater human satisfaction in order to be considered a worthwhile undertaking (Baxter 384). One thing that separates Baxter’s strong anthropocentrism from Shallow Ecology because of the latter’s even narrower scope of environmental preservation for the sake of “some humanity first”. Shallow Ecology has a very clear focus on the developing world, clearly making anti-pollution and resource depletion a concern for higher-class humans. Shallow Ecology does not operate to conserve resources for all humanity and has a unique orientation towards class. Baxter at least holds that the goal of environmental preservation should ideally be as utilitarian as possible and that every human regardless of class should have the resources to fulfill their goals, even though he presents no detailed method for fulfilling this position. He at least acknowledges a wide dispersal of resources as an “ideal”.
Deep Ecology can be linked in some ways with Weak Anthropocentrism, as they both promote bio-spherical relationships that can benefit non-human forms of life for their own sake, not only for the sake of human prosperity, but lists human prosperity as an additional benefit. A connection between Deep Ecology and Brian Norton can be drawn, but the reasons for viewing all forms of life with respect slightly differ. Norton holds that pollution should be avoided beyond the human cost and that waste should be avoided, and like Deep Ecology, he holds that the moral preservation of the environment cannot be individualistic. But Norton, and weak Anthropocentrism in general, lacks the element of Deep Ecology which focuses on the varying effects of pollution across the social, economic, and regional class. Norton holds no specific caveat for preservation that aims to address how pollution affects different social classes in varying ways.
In the Introduction by Andrew Light and Eric Katz, “Environmental Pragmatism and Environmental Ethics as Contested Terrain”, they address the concerns of environmental ethics as it concerns the preservation of sustainable life on earth and the elimination of environmental hazards. They maintain that principles of philosophical ethics are highly valuable in the process of determining the environmental ethics that should guide anti-pollution and stewardship efforts. They hold that the methodology of “environmental pragmatism” should be at the core of implementing environmental ethics. Environmental pragmatism for Light and Katz is “the open-ended inquiry into the specific real-life problems of humanity’s relationship with the environment” (Light & Katz, 2). Through this methodology, the oppose the idea that only a small handful of approaches to environmental ethics are worth consideration, and they maintain that this has prevented conservation efforts from achieving its central task. Applying philosophical inquiry and broadening the discussion of how anti-pollution can be successfully implemented will lead to a morally justified environmental policy.
Light and Katz state that the bipolarized, “one or the other” debates over environmental approaches of anthropocentrism versus non-anthropocentrism, or instrumental versus intrinsic value of various forms of planetary life are unnecessary and prevent the development of a unified vision for environmental ethics. When considering the Deep versus Shallow Ecology movements, Light and Katz might hold that the strict distinction between only those two options restricts deeper philosophical discussions about environmental values and prevent stabilization of the currently disputed and unachieved environmental imperatives.
Word count: 952
Two-line discussion question: If we consider Baxter and Norton as Deep and Shallow Ecologists respectively, how do their stances fit in with the traditional theories of Ethical Egoism and Social Darwinism?
Citations:
Baxter, William. People or Penguins:The Case for Optimal Pollution. New York: Columbia University Press, 1974.
Light, A. & Katz, E. “Introduction: Environmental pragmatism and environmental ethics as contested terrain”.
Naess, Arne. “The Shallow and the Deep, Long Range Ecology Movements: A Summary”. Inquiry. Oslo 16, 1973.
Norton, Bryan. “Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism”. Environmental Ethics. 1984.
Environmental Ethics 
Leave a comment