Summaries 10, 11, 12 and 13

Chapter 13

Environmental Ethics

Background –1

Real-world challenges causing environmental issues:

• endangered species
• pollution
• wilderness preservation
• treatment of animals
• ecosystem protection
• waste disposal
• global population
• resource allocation
• energy use
• economics
• food production
• world hunger
• social justice
• welfare of future generations

Background –2

Climate change, an increase in global surface temperatures caused by higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, is the one environmental problem that is entangled with all the others.

Background –3

Outline of the debate:

Nonmoral facts: general agreement

Moral principles and judgments: significant disagreement

For example:

All parties may agree that some activity will bring about economic development while causing a negative impact on the environment but disagree on which outcome is most important.

Background –4

A central question:

What entities have moral status and to what degree do they have it?

• Something with instrumental(or extrinsic) valueis valuable as a means to something else.
  • For many people, nature possesses instrumental value only.
• Something with intrinsicvalueis valuable regardless of its usefulness to humanity.
  • For many other people, nature has intrinsic value—it is valuable in itself, for its own sake.

Anthropocentrism:the notion that only humans have moral standing

Zoocentrism:the notion that both human and nonhuman animals have moral status

Biocentrism:the view that all living entities have moral status, whether sentient or not; also referred to as life-centered ethics

Background –5

Species egalitarian:one who believes that all living things have equal moral status

Species nonegalitarian:one who believes that some living things have greater moral worth than others

Background –6

Ecological individualist: one who believes that the fundamental unit of moral consideration in environmental ethics is the individual

Ecological holist: one who believes that the fundamental unit of moral consideration in environmental ethics is the entire biosphere and its ecosystems

Moral Theories –1

Traditional Kantian view:

• This view is strongly anthropocentric.
• Animals have instrumental value only.
• Kant asserts, “Animals . . . are there merely as means to an end. That end is man.”

Moral Theories –2

Traditional natural law view:

Thomas Aquinas: Animals are tools to be employed at the discretion of humans.

Moral Theories –3

Nonconsequentialist/Kantian theorists:

• They reject instrumentalist views, asserting that the environment or its constituents have intrinsic value, just as persons are thought to be intrinsically valuable.
• Paul Taylor: The “well-being [of the Earth’s wild communities of life], as well as human well-being, is something to be realized as an end in itself.”

Moral Theories –4

Nonconsequentialist/Kantian theorists:

• Tom Reganargues that sentient animals, human and nonhuman, possess equal intrinsicworthand therefore have an equal moral right not to be treated as mere things.
• The result of applying Regan’s view to the treatment of animals would be the eradication of factory farming, animal experimentation, and hunting.

Moral Theories –5

Utilitarians:

Peter Singer (following the lead of Jeremy Bentham):

In calculating which action will produce the greatest overall satisfaction of interests, we must include the interests of all sentientcreaturesand give their interests equal weight.

Moral Arguments –1

When, if ever, do environmental entities or beings have moral status?

A “natural” argument:

1. All natural entities have moral status (intrinsic value or rights, for example).
2. Old-growth forests are natural entities.
3. Therefore, old-growth forests have moral status.

Moral Arguments –2

A “natural” argument: Is Premise 1 true?

Common answers:

Yes: Premise 1 is supported by our moral intuitions.

No: The property of naturalness does not confer some kind of moral standing on objects.

Moral Arguments –3

When, if ever, do environmental entities or beings have moral status?

Biocentric egalitarianism (Paul Taylor):

1. Humans are members of earth’s community of life in exactly the same way that all other living things are members.
2. Human beings and all other living things constitute a dynamic system of interlinked and interdependent parts.
3. Each living thing is a “teleological center of life, pursuing its own good in its own way.”
4. Human beings are not superior to other species.
5. Therefore, all living things have equal moral status.

Moral Arguments –4

Biocentric egalitarianism:

• Taylor: If we accept Premises 1–3, it would not be unreasonable to accept Premise 4.
• Criticism: Premise 4 does not follow from Premises 1–3. (Even if Premises 1–3 are true, we are not obliged to accept Premise 4.)

Moral Arguments –5

Biocentric egalitarianism:

Criticisms of Taylor’s conclusion: “What seems far more problematic for species egalitarianism is that it seems to suggest that it makes no difference what we kill. Vegetarians typically think itworse to kill a cow than to kill a carrot. Are they wrong?”

Credits

This concludes the PowerPoint slide set for Chapter 13

Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues

Fifth Edition (2019) by Lewis Vaughn.