Environmental Philosophy/Ethics: An Overviewby J. Baird Callicott

Visiting Senior Research Scientist

University Distinguished Research Professor Regents Professor of Philosophy

Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies

National Socio-environmental Synthesis CenterAnnapolis, MarylandSeptember 9, 2014

Outline

Origins of environmental philosophy and ethics as an academic fieldSocial context Major precursors

Agenda-setting seminal text: Lynn White Jr.’s “Historical Roots”

Seminal text: Aldo Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac

Major fault-lines

Major sub-fields

My areas of particular interest

Origins of Environmental Ethics as an Academic Field of Study

First college course—1971, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Pointby J. Baird Callicott

First published papers—1973, 1975:

“The Shallow and the Deep, Long-range Ecology Movements:A Summary,” by Arne Naess (Norway)

“Is There a Need for a New, an Environmental Ethic?”by Richard Routley (Australia)

“Is There an Ecological Ethic?”by Holmes Rolston III (USA)

Origins of Environmental Ethics as an Academic Field of Study

First journal—1979Environmental Ethics: An Interdisciplinary Journal Dedicatedto the Philosophical Aspects of Environmental Problems

Eugene C. Hargrove, founding editor

First conference proceedings:Philosophy and Environmental Crisis, William T. Blackstone,editor (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1974)

First monograph:Man’s Responsibility for Nature: Ecological Problems andWestern Traditions, by John Passmore (New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1974)

Origins of Environmental Ethics as an Academic Field of Study

J. Baird Callicott

Arne Næss

Richard Sylvan (Francis Richard Routley)

Holmes Rolston III

Eugene C. Hargrove

John Passmore

Callicott Naess Routley

Rolston Hargrove Passmore

Context of Environmental Ethics as a Field of Study

Environmental Crisis of the 1960s—oil spills on beaches, riverspolluted with municipal and industrial waste, indiscriminateuse of pesticides, smog over big cites (esp. LA and Houston)

Crisis Literature—Silent Spring by Rachael Carson (1962) —The Quiet Crisis by Stewart Udall (1963)

Unrest on College Campuses—Protest against war in Viet Nam, CivilRights Movement—> demand for relevancy in the classroom

Photos of a beautiful blue planet Earth—taken by Apollo 8, 10, & 11astronauts (including by the late Neil Armstrong) from the moon.

First National Earth Day1970—sponsored by Representative PeteMcCloskey (R. Cal.) and Senator Gaylord Nelson (D. Wis.)

Major Precursors of Environmental Ethics

Henry David Thoreau John Muir Aldo Leopold

HDT: Nature has “higher uses”—aesthetic, spiritual, as well as material —anthropocentric (human-centered) / cultural ecosystem servicesJM: Snakes, bears, alligators have “rights” & intrinsic value —non-anthropocentric / individualistic AL: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability,

and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”

—non-anthropocentric / holistic

1817-1862 1838-1914 1887-1948

Agenda-Setting Seminal Text of Environmental Ethics

Lynn White Jr., “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis”—Science 155 (1967):1203-1207 (LW: historian of technology)

White’s Argument:• Modern technology —> environmental crisis• Technology as old as humanity: flaked stones,

sharpened-stick spears, bows-and-arrows—all technologies• Modern technology = technology informed by science (previously

knowledge-for-knowledge’s sake), beginning in 18th century.• Aggressive technology and the Scientific Revolution began in

Christendom—in Western Europe in late Middle Ages.• (Judeo-) Christian worldview set out in the Holy Bible• Therefore, the “historical roots” of our “ecologic crisis” are

traceable to the Judeo-Christian biblical worldview.

Agenda-Setting Seminal Text of Environmental Ethics

The J-C biblical worldview—the Big Picture—set out in Genesis 1

“Man” alone is created in the image of God; to have dominion over the animals (Gen. 1:26)—both male and female (Gen. 1:27)

God commands them to “be fruitful and multiply”; “replenish the earth”; “and subdue it” (Gen.1:28)

Aldo Leopold anticipates White’s analysis: “Conservation is gettingnowhere because it is incompatible with our Abrahamic conceptof land. We abuse land because we regard it as a commoditybelonging to us. When we see land as a community to which webelong, we may begin to use it with love and respect. That landis a community is the basic concept of ecology, but that land is to be loved and respected is an extension of ethics.”

Agenda-Setting Seminal Text of Environmental Ethics

Beneath the lurid and cavalier environmental critique of the J-C worldview is a more general subtext, repeated again and again as a kind of refrain:

“What shall we do? No one yet knows. Unless we think about funda-mentals, our specific measures may produce backlashes.”

“What people do about their ecology [environment] depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them.”

“What we do about ecology [the environment] depends on our ideas ofthe man-nature relationship.”

“We must rethink and refeel our nature and destiny.”

Agenda-Setting Seminal Text of Environmental Ethics

Whose professional remit is it to think about fundamentals? philosophers, that’s who.

In the early 1970s, White made some of us philosophers feel like onlywe could save the world from a worsening environmental crisis.Because to do anything effective about it depended on firstthinking about the man-nature relationship—or so White insisted.

So, here was the agenda for a future environmental philosophy:

1. Critique our inherited ideas about (a) human nature, (b) Nature, and (c) the human-Nature relationship. Not all such ideas are biblical. What about ancient Greek philosophy? What about Cartesian dualism? Newtonian mechanism? Lockean private property? Etc.

2. Think up new, better, more environment-friendly ideas about (a) human nature, (b) Nature, and (c) the human-Nature relationship.

Agenda-Setting Seminal Text of Environmental Ethics

How do we “think up” new ideas about (a) human nature, (b) Nature, and (c) the human-Nature relationship?

White offered two suggestions: (1) look for recessive memes in the history of Western philosophy (in his own case, St. Francis of Assisi whopreached to animals and converted a rogue wolf to Christianity); (2) turnto Asian traditions of thought for conceptual resources (in his case, Zen Buddhism, popularized by D. T Suzuki, Alan Watts, and Gary Snyder)

(1) Naess found Spinoza’s philosophy to be environmentally friendly, others offered up Pythagoras, Heraclitus, A. N. Whitehead, etc.

(2) In addition to Zen Buddhism, Daoism was especially appealing froman environmental point of view; and the renowned world religions scholar Huston Smith wrote an essay titled “Tao Now!”

Agenda-Setting Seminal Text of Environmental Ethics

(3) I followed Aldo Leopold who found a new natural philosophy orworldview in evolutionary biology and ecology.

(a) Human nature: humans are an evolved species, existing as a part of, not apart from, the rest of Nature.

(b) Nature: not a collection of externally related objects, but a networkor system of co-evolved and interrelated parts of an integrated

whole.

(c) The human-Nature relationship: Not one of dominance and control,but of coexistence, harmony, cooperation, and partnership.

Seminal Text of Environmental Ethics

On first encounter, the book seems like ahodge-podge of essays, wildly varying inlength and topic, divided into three parts:

I. “the shack sketches” organized by months ofthe year and all set on the Leopold farmstead.

II. Sketches Here and There scattered acrossthe continent and spanning a lifetime of experience

III. The Upshot with its climactic “The Land Ethic”

All united and driven by a single overarching theme: the exposition and promulgation of an evolutionary-ecological worldview and its axiological and normative implications

Major Fault Lines in Environmental Ethics:Anthropocentrism vs Non-anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism:

human action > affects > environment > affects > other humans forbetter or worse

Example Rachel Carson: bioaccumulation of organochlorides causescancer in humans

But her title “Silent Spring” expands anthropocentrism in the directionindicated by Thoreau—Nature has “higher uses”; humans maybe deprived of bird songs and many other “psycho-spiritualresources” (or cultural services).

Major Fault Lines in Environmental Ethics:Anthropocentrism vs Non-anthropocentrism

Non-anthropocentrism:

human action > affects > environment itself for better or worse

Forms of non-anthropocentrism: animal rights (mammals) based on a Kantian platform

(Tom Regan)animal liberation (vertebrates) based on a utilitarian platform

(Peter Singer)biocentrism (all organisms) based on a Kantian platform

(Paul Taylor)ecocentrism (species, ecosystems, biotic communities based

either on a Kantian platform (LawrenceJohnson) or on a Humean/Darwian platform (me)

Major Fault Lines in Environmental Ethics:Instrumental vs Intrinsic Value

Instrumental value: The value of something as a means to another’s endsParadigm cases: cars, clothes, tools, etc.Problematic cases: humans (human trafficking)

Intrinsic value: The value of something as an end in itselfParadigm cases: human beingsProblematic cases: animals of various sorts; species;

biodiversity; ecosystems

Not mutually exclusive: many things have both kinds of valueParadigm cases: employees; spousesProblematic cases: animals of various sorts; species

biodiversity; ecosystems

Major Fault Lines in Environmental Ethics:Instrumental vs Intrinsic Value

Things having instrumental value are amenable to economic valuation:(1) via the market (cars, clothes, tools, animals of various kinds,

etc.)(2) via the ingenuity of environmental economists to assign a “shadow price” for things not traded in markets—e.g.:

(a) travel-cost method—e.g., for national parksmoney spent on gasoline, lodging, meals, fees, foregone income, etc., x number of visitors–(b) hedonic pricing—e.g., price of an ocean-front house

in Carmel vs. same house in Bakersfield(c) contingent valuation—e.g., asking people how much

they would pay for a clear view of Mexico from Big Bend NP free of maquiladora air pollution or to know that snail darters are safe from extinction= total bids after “protest bids” are discarded

Major Fault Lines in Environmental Ethics:Instrumental vs Intrinsic Value

Things having intrinsic value are not amenable to economic valuation. Indeed one function of assigning intrinsic value to something isto remove it from the econosphere

—paradigm case: the prohibition of slavery (and all forms of “human trafficking”)

Corollary 1: intrinsic value ≠ existence value; existence valuecan be shadow priced; things of intrinsic value shouldnot be

Corollary 2: all values are not preferences. E.g., slaveryis contrary to our “transcendent values”

—interesting case: the prohibition of trade in ivory,rhino horn, and other parts of endangered species

Major Fault Lines in Environmental Ethics:Instrumental vs Intrinsic Value

All values are of subjective provenance. Value is not an objectiveproperty like mass or velocity. Only when things are valued

do they “have” value.

Preferences are literally objectified via the market—the built and manufactured environment reveals our human preferences.

Transcendent values (including intrinsic value) are objectified, in a democratic form of governance, through rational debate,

legislation, and jurisprudence

Quantification of intrinsic value: penalties and sanctions associated with harming things having intrinsic value provides a measure

of how much intrinsic value society accords thingslegislatively or jurisprudentially awarded it.

Major Fault Lines in Environmental Ethics:Instrumental vs Intrinsic Value

Interactions between things having intrinsic value and things havingonly instrumental value in the real world—

(1) Trade-offs: Having intrinsic value shifts the burden of proof fromdefender to destroyer. Legal analog: “innocent until proven

guilty” Economic analog: Safe Minimum Standardalternative to Benefit-Cost Analysis

(2) Unintended effect: Creates a black market in things having intrinsic value Examples: human trafficking and trafficking in

animals and animal parts of species listed under CITES

The US ESA and CITES (both enacted in 1973) thus implicitly assign intrinsic value to listed species.

UN Convention on Biological Diversity (1992): “Conscious of the intrinsic value of biological diversity and of the ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its components . . .”

UN Earth Charter (2000): “1. Respect Earth and life in all its diversity. a. Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings”—which isone definition of “intrinsic value.”

The difference between 1973 and 1992/2000: Environmental philosophers created a discourse for an otherwise inchoate value intuition.

Major Fault Lines in Environmental Ethics:Instrumental vs Intrinsic Value

Major Fault Lines in Environmental Ethics:Individualism vs. Holism

Modern Western ethics has been both militantly anthropocentric andmilitantly individualistic

Animal liberation and animal rights are non-anthropocentric, but alsoindividualistic.

Biocentrism (all organisms) is also individualistic

But distinctly conservation/environmental concerns are holistic: species extinction (not specimens), biotic communities,

ecosystems, biodiversity

Major Fault Lines in Environmental Ethics:Individualism vs. Holism

Aldo Leopold: “All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single principle:that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts.”

Ecology “simply expands the boundary of the community to include plants, animals, soils, and waters or collectively: the land.

“A land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of theland community to plain member and citizen of it; it impliesrespect for fellow-members and for the community as such.”

“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, andbeauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tendsotherwise.”

Major Sub-fields in Environmental Philosophy:Ecofeminism

Emerged in the 1980s as a synthesis of environmental ethics and feministphilosophy

Main premise: feminist analysis of social injustices: a “logic of oppression” based on historical hierarchical dualisms—

male/female; civilized/savage; master/slave can beapplied to the human/nature relationship

Principal architects: Karen J. Warren, Val Plumwood, Greta Gaard

Major Sub-fields in Environmental Philosophy:Environmental Pragmatism

Emerged in the 1980s as an application of classic American Pragmatism(C. S Peirce, Wm. James, John Dewey) to environmental concerns

Main approach: prioritize policy; treat theory as a tool kit; pluralistic. Generally hostile to intrinsic value of nature and militantly

anthropocentric

Principal architects: Bryan G. Norton, Andrew Light, Paul Thompson

Major Sub-fields in Environmental Philosophy:Comparative Environmental Philosophy

Emerged in the 1980s as a synthesis of comparative philosophy(Western with non-Western, mainly Asian) and environmental

philosophy

Main premise: Non-western traditions of thought (Buddhist, DaoistConfucian, various indigenous) represent rich conceptual

resources for environmental philosophy and ethics Principal architects: J. B. Callicott, C. K. Chapple, Mary E. Tucker

Major Sub-fields in Environmental Philosophy:Ecophenomenology

Emerged in the 1990s as an application of Continental philosophy(Husserl, Heidegger, Meleau-Ponty, Levinas, Foucault) to

environmental issues and concerns

Main focus: describing lived experience of nature, human relationships with animals, emphasis on place and

particularity, hostility to both science and ethics

Principle Architects: Ed Casey, Irene J. Klaver, Ted Toadvine

Major Sub-fields in Environmental Philosophy:Environmental Justice

Emerged in the 1990s as an application of theories of social justice (Rawls, Nussbaum, Sen) and race and class theory to unjust

environmental inequities

Main premise: There is no “human” relationship with nature, becausedifferent groups of humans have differential impacts on nature;

environmental benefits and harms are distributed unjustly

Principle architects: Rob Figueroa, Bill Lawson, Kyle Powys Whyte

Major Sub-fields in Environmental Philosophy:Climate Ethics

Emerged in the 1990s in response to the globalization of the environmental crisis in the 1980s: biodiversity loss, thinning

of the ozone membrane, global climate change.

Main focus: international environmental justice (those most vulnerableare those least responsible) and intergenerational justice—in

response to the planetary spatial and millennial temporalscales of climate change

Principle architects: Michel Serres, Dale Jamieson, Stephen Gardiner

My Areas of Particular Interest

Theoretical Environmental Philosophy and Ethics

My Areas of Particular Interest

The Aldo Leopold Land Ethic

My Areas of Particular Interest

Comparative Environmental Philosophy

My Areas of Particular Interest

Philosophy of Ecology and Conservation Biology

My Areas of Particular Interest

Climate Ethics