8/3/2019 EVSP508 Week 3 Forum

1/2

American Military University - EVSP508: Environmental EthicsWeek 3 Forum Topic: Deep Ecology and Ecocentric Ethics

The Assignment

Does nature have intrinsic value?

This week, we are exploring the writing of some of the grandfathers of Environmental Ethics. For example,Holmes Rolston writes eloquently about intrinsic value from a philosopher's perspective. The Deep

Ecologists have taken the notion of intrinsic value a step further to examine our relationship with the Earth.

They criticize "shallow ecologists" or the anthropocentric viewpoint.

For this week's discussion, we will focus on the question that has motivated the field of Environmental

Ethics for the past 30 years:Does nature have intrinsic value? Using the arguments presented by the

philosophers in our readings, please present your thoughts on this question. Be sure to properly cite all

reference resources used to build your posts, to include course assigned readings and outside research as

appropriate. Follow APA style for all assignments throughout this course.

As a reminder, for each weekly forum discussion you are required to post one initial post in an original

thread (include a unique title) and respond to a minimum of two your classmates' original threads. Yourinitial post should be at least 500 words and your responses to classmates posts should be at least 250 words.

You are also in charge of moderating your own thread to respond to your classmates' comments, responses,

and questions.

My forum posting

There are two reasons why Im very frustrated by this weeks forum topic. First off, the answer to the simple

question posedDoes nature have intrinsic value? is, to me, so freaking obviously YES, and yetamazingly (again, to me)there is an ongoing debate about that answer, with equally intelligent peopleforwarding carefully thought out reasons for answering either yes or no! The other frustrating thing for me is

that I frankly find that the question and endless debates over its answer are pointless and deflecting attention

away from addressing the oncoming calamities for all life on earth.

With those frustrations in mind, I return to my Weeks 1 and 2 posts. In both, I voiced support for Rolstonsviews of intrinsic value, and I called for urgent environmentally pragmatic action to change societal ways of

life so that humanity constantly seeks to work in harmony with nature.

Yes, theres a trap of sorts for us subscribers to the viewpoint that nature possesses intrinsic value: there

seems to be only one honest outcome to going down that logic pathcomplete separation of humanity andnature. I assert that the bestalthough perhaps not perfectroute to avoiding that trap is embodied in the

last nine words of the preceding paragraph, humanity constantly seeks to work in harmony with nature.

Reverentially respecting all life as being equally intrinsically valuable does not require that humans abstain

from contacting or using non-humans; it simply requires that humans be aware of and live according to thefact that humans have no more nor no less a privilege to value life and pursue living.

Other life-forms cant and therefore dont need to think about the effects of their actions, or of human-

specific non-harmonious impulses like greed and shortcut taking. Humans, on the other hand, can and must

think about the effects of their actions, making sure to engage in only those that are harmonious with nature

and therefore dont result from destructive impulses (like greed and shortcut taking).

Speaking of shortcut taking: I did identify strongly with Naesss (2011) seven defining principles of DeepEcology, especially the sixth,

8/3/2019 EVSP508 Week 3 Forum

2/2

Complexity, not complication...Applied to humans, the complexity-not-complication principlefavours division of labor, not fragmentation of labor. It favours integrated actions in which the

whole person is active, not mere reactions. It favours complex economies, an integrated variety of

means of living. (Combinations of industrial and agricultural activity, of intellectual and manual

work, of specialized and nonspecialized occupations, of urban and non-urban activity, of work in

city and recreation in nature with recreation in city and work in nature...) (p. 131)

Appreciating and abiding by the sixth principal means, in my mind, that humans must neveror almostneverjust jump at the easiest, cheapest way to achieve a desired outcome. All factors must be weighed,second and third effects must be accounted for. Factors and effects must be considered in terms of promoting

or countering harmony, or the yin and yang concept that I first defined via Wikipedia for last weeks forumposting, and I quote again here:

In Asian philosophy, the concept of yin yang... is used to describe how polar opposites or

seemingly contrary forces are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world, and how they

give rise to each other in turn.

In conclusion, I generally identify with Holmes and Naess (2011), who both assign objective intrinsic value

to nonhuman life forms. I also generally agree with the principals of Naesss (2011) Deep Ecology. My

eyelids grew real heavy and I became irritated by the density of Naesss (2011) writing, and what to me isoveranalysis of a fairly simple question. I think that rather than continue their endless debate about subjectiveversus intrinsic value for nonhuman life, ethicists and other thinkers and doers need to engage in debates on

the establishment of policies and systems that maximize humanity-nature harmony. In other words, stop

looking at the fire and arguing about its essence; instead collaborate on figuring out how to put the damn

thing out!

Rolston III, H. (2011). Naturalizing values: organisms and species. In L. P. Pojman & P. Pojman (Eds.),

Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application (6th ed., pp. 105-118). Boston, MA: Wadsworth,

Inc. (Original work published 1998).

Naess, A. (2011). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecological movement. In L. P. Pojman & P. Pojman

(Eds.), Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application (6th ed., pp. 129-133). Boston, MA:Wadsworth, Inc. (Original work published 1973).

Naess, A. (2011). Ecosophy T: deep versus shallow ecology. In L. P. Pojman & P. Pojman (Eds.),

Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application (6th ed., pp. 129-133). Boston, MA: Wadsworth,

Inc. (Original work published 1985).

Yin and yang. (February 2011). Retrieved from Wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang, on

December 16, 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yanghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yanghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yanghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang