When analyzing environmental Issues and where one stands, one must consider central questions at the heart of environmental ethics: what value do humans and nonhumans have? Do they share the same value? Do either have “moral standing”, or intrinsic value beyond being a means to an end? Humans, as moral agents capable of reflecting on reasons, have come up with varying explanations and moral justifications regarding these questions, the moral standing of life forms, and what ought to be done to address environmental issues. In The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book, 3rdedition, Donald VanDeVeer helps us to put these different ethics into a framework for moral agents to consider with reason.
As we continue to delve deeper into various philosophers and thinkers’ moral arguments and conclusions, the elements of moral justifications, predictions, and descriptions present within each theory must all be thoroughly examined. According to VanDeVeer, if the moral conclusion of an argument is solely based upon empirical premises (claims about what is/was true about the world, sometimes scientific), the argument is not valid because it is secretly value laden with moral claims (what ought to be done) and relies on them as empirical (VanDeVeer, p8). If a moral agent does not consider preconceptions and assumptions which are based on limited evidence or irrational prejudices, the claim cannot be empirical. VanDeVeer holds that it is reasonable to hold that theories that are worthy of acceptance and implementation should have plausible, relevant empirical claims, implications that are clear and reasonable for actions that we ought to take, and a coherent justification as to why we ought to take those actions. Even if the moral conclusions are different, the simplest requirements for moral arguments is that they should, adequately explain whose life, integrity, or well-being matters morally and why, as well as theorize how to view and come up with plans of action in cases that are difficult to reason (VanDeVeer, p13).
Some theories we have already examined and many we will examine address the specific issue of the value of humans compared to animals, organism, and the earth in general. They take on a variety of forms of anthropocentrism, which holds that humans in themselves are valuable and have moral standing as an end. Some theories believe that humans exclusively are ends, that humans and other organisms are ends, or even that only some humans have value as ends, while other humans and animals are means. How theories justify and explain the moral significance of human life on earth dictates the moral action- the “ought”.
One of the mainstream traditional ethical theories is Ethical Egoism, which holds that each person ought to promote his or her own self-interest. This is anthropocentric as it applies to the individual himself/herself, and the happiness/interests of others only have value as they are instruments/tools to the achieve the individual’s interest. As an environmental theory specifically, the environment is considered instrumental, and the criterion of moral standing is the agent over “everything else”. Related to this is Social Darwinism, which also values some humans over others, as it holds that the fittest and strongest humans ought to and/or will survive. Instead of only valuing one’s own self-interest, this asserts that it is especially beneficial and necessary to ignore the interest of other human beings and the environment in order to win Darwin’s game of Natural Selection. Main issues that VanDeVeer points out about these two theories are that the competition in nature is accompanied by cooperation, and that “fitness” is relative to context (physical, intellectual, emotion) and highly disputable in importance.
Other theories, such as the Divine Command Theory, are based in a worldview crafted around the presence, importance, and interference of God, or the divine in general. The former holds that God exists, and “whether an act is right or not depends solely on whether God commands it” (VanDeVeer, p19). Some issues with theories which see the world as divinely commanded is that it presupposes that humans can know those divine commands and create moral standing in accordance with them. There is dispute between who can know what from God, and various groups of moral agents can cite God as the source of their moral criterions which can conflict or overlap to give moral standing to one, some, or all humans and living things.
Theories that cover a wider range of humans are Virtue ethics (Aristotle), Utilitarianism (Mill and Bentham), and Rights Ethics. Virtue ethics holds that there is a rational hierarchy of nature dictated by capacity to nourish, move, experience sensations, reason etc. Humans are at the top of this hierarchy because they are rational animals, so this is anthropocentric, but encourages finding and valuing virtue in the nonhuman as well. Utilitarianism that what ought to be done (the agent’s duty) is whatever maximizes the total amount of net utility (VanDeVeer, p24). Utilitarianism emphasizes consequences for actions like Ethical Egoism, but, the importance of desired happiness/utility is not limited to an individual’s self-interest, and good and bad consequences are weighted for everyone affected by the action. Right’s ethics is also duty based. Rights theories are usually “individualistic”, and attribute rights to individuals: humans, animals, the environment, and/or specific communities/groups within those three. This theory does not mean that all those with moral standing possess all the same rights or that rights are absolute rights. Rights theory should dictate what ought to be done when the rights of one conflict with another and justify the possession of rights.
One final theory is the Environmental Justice Theory, which does not just state the necessity of maximizing net utility/happiness, but concerns itself with the question of “how happiness or unhappiness is distributed among the population of humans or even sentient beings” (VanDeVeer, p34). Specific concerns to be addressed are that traditional Environmental Justice theories are anthropocentric and consider what it means to be a just, human society without considering how far that justice goes beyond Homo Sapiens.
The environmental ethics of Al Gore, which will be examined in detail later on, consists of his argument that “an extension of democracy and market economics is a prerequisite for saving the global environment, and why we must address the shortcoming in our current iterations of democracy and market economics in order to maximize the empowerment of individuals and communities” (Fisher-Smith). His argument that the source of environmental problems is humanity’s current operating system which ignores/worsens poverty and disenfranchisement. Those who live in those conditions because of market economics have no power to live otherwise; no social power or economic means to live in ways that benefit the environment.
Word Count: 1247
2 Line Discussion Question: Al Gore’s worldview in the Fisher-Smith piece is that “we are both a part of the web of life and separate from it”, which hints at the environmental wisdom worldview, but he also holds that transcendent beauty from the Creator is in every corner of Creation, hinting at theological environmental theories. Would his environmental policy be more in accordance with the Divine Command Theory or Natural Law Ethics?
Citations:
Fisher-Smith, Jordan. “Environmentalism of the Spirit: An Interview with Senator Al Gore”. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. 1993.
VanDeVeer, Donald, Pierce, Christine.The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book, 3rdedition. Thompson & Wadsworth. 2003.
Environmental Ethics 
Leave a comment