The two thinkers I will now explore address ethics which are under the umbrella of the Earth Wisdom worldview. Paul Taylor, in “Competing Claims and Principles” and “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”, argues for biocentrism and biocentric egalitarianism, which share some of the same principles of Deep Ecology. In “The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism”, Karen Warren argues for the ethics of ecofeminism.
Taylor’s arguments for his theory of “biocentrism” draw from the philosophies of Kant’s “respect for life” ethics and Aristotle’s virtue based/community-oriented ethics. Taylor highlights the interconnectedness of everything in the biotic environment; evolutionary connections which go back millions of years can never fully be mapped or understood. Taylor, like Leopold, appeals to the empiricism of ecology and biology to support both that idea of deep and mysterious interconnectedness between all biotic elements of nature. His theory of biocentrism manifests in his assertion that every member of the biotic community must be respected as an end in itself. He expands Kant’s tenet to apply to all living things. For Taylor, the criterion of moral standing is being alive.
Furthermore, when anthropocentrism dictates moral standing, it does so based upon characteristics that humans especially value which may not be present in other life. For example, humans valuing reason does not mean that animals without reason do not have value. This view is wrong and self-serving, because from the perspective of a fish who values being able to breathe underwater above all/as a sign of superiority, humans would not have value. Taylor calls this stance “species narcissism”(invoked by Butler), as it assumes that other creatures with different characteristics do not have a “good of their own”. By making the criterion for moral standing simply being alive on the planet, Biocentrism encourages a living earth community that respects all members and treats them with tolerance, empathy, and mutual accommodation/cooperation.
Taylor acknowledges that the plausibility of this philosophy- which is a fairly broad suggestion- is questionable, so he outlines 5 “priority principles” to assist navigating more specific environmental conflicts of interests. To briefly list them: Self Defense Proportionality, Minimum Wrong, Distributive Justice, and Restitutive Justice (Taylor, “Competing Claims and Priority Principles”). These propositions for conflict resolution do well to address the problem of ethic implementation, a gap in the theory which many other Earth Wisdom philosophies cannot seem to fill.
Warren’s defines her philosophy of ecological feminism, or “Ecofeminism”, as “the position that there are important connections- historical, symbolic, theoretical- between the domination of women and the domination of nonhuman nature” (VanDeVeer, p279). The feminist movement tries to garner equal respect and opportunities for success for both men and women. Ecofeminism compares the historical, divisive differences between women and men to the differences between humans and the rest of nature. And, also like feminism shuts down the idea of one sex being dominant, Ecofeminism does not suppose that humans have dominance over nature, and instead suggests that they are interconnected and the differences in nature are worth celebrating with equal import. The respect of other humans demanded by feminism is expanded by ecofeminism which demands respect from humans of both the abiotic (inanimate natural aspects) and biotic (other species). As moral agents, it is the duty of humans to care for all elements of nature.
(Image. “Ecofeminism”. Google Images, public domain).
A particularly unique element of Ecofeminism compared to the various other Earth Wisdom worldviews, is Warren’s inclusion of the “feminine” qualities of nature. Her use of the word feminism is not limited to being a descriptor of inequality, and she uses it as a crucial part of her environmental ethic. The traditional male desire for dominance over women has created a parallel with nature: because of humanity’s anthropocentrism and desire to conquer and control nature, nature has taken on some feminine qualities and connotations. Planetary management for Warren’s ecofeminism would be equivalent to the oppression of the patriarchy for feminism. Progress past these natural inequalities can be made with a change of worldview. The growth of feminism has influenced the worldview of men, and differences between people are being accepted with love, care and respect. Warren says that the same shifts of mindset can happen with the relationship between humanity and biotic/abiotic nature; nature is not without moral standing just because it consists of elements which function differently than humans.
As a woman, it is very easy for me to comprehend these parallels that Warren points out between the two movements. Just as several anthropocentric environmental theories view all nonhuman entities as means to the human ends, the history of patriarchal power viewed women as means to the men’s ends. By attaching an exclusively human social movement to an environmental ethic, Warren anthropomorphizes nature. Because I have at times felt like I was seen as a lesser form of life and a utility by men, it was easy for me to “put myself in nature’s shoes”, so to speak. Warren utilizes this metaphor very effectively, as it makes us reflect on the differences between how humans like to be treated and the way they treat the environment. It appeals to our anthropocentric nature to allow us to give moral standing to the biotic/abiotic environment, and also has the advantage of being easily understandable and relatable to very large percentages of the population.
I do have reservations about fully equating the plights of women at the hands of men to the plights of nature. Since the invention of agriculture around 10,000-12,000 years ago, humans have been exploiting the environment. The “battle of the sexes” also has a deep and long history, but the rights of women and the respect they receive has been on a relatively steady incline in this last century. On the other hand, the past century has seen mass destruction of the environment at unbelievably fast rates by the means of industry/industrial agriculture, fashion, transportation, pollution, deforestation, climate change, and species extinctions. It is for this reason that I think the metaphor Warren presents is valuable and sparks reflection, but it is not an applicable environmental ethic.
WORD COUNT: 1083
2 line discussion question: Taylor outlined 5 “priority principles” to help implement Biocentrism in specific environmental conflicts and issues. Is there any way that Warren’s Ecofeminism could be implemented in the same way? Is it possible to turn her metaphorical philosophy into one that can be applied to specific environmental conflicts?
CITATIONS:
Taylor, Paul. “Competing Claims and Priority Principles”.
VanDeVeer, Donald, Pierce, Christine.The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book, 3rdedition. Thompson & Wadsworth. 2003.
Environmental Ethics 
Leave a comment