G.-G. ARSENEU.A.S.V.M.B. Timisoara

2009

Rel

igio

n

Science(Ecology) PhilosophyE.E.

Ecology

- science(natural philosophy)

- objective

Ethics

-philosophy

subjective

Science:

1. How things are.2. Repports and explains facts.3. Generates descriptions.

Ethics:

1. How things ought to be.2. Identifies values.3. Genetrate prescriptions.

Ecological generalities• systems• relations• complexity

– emergent properties– non-linear behaviour– chaos

• scalar approaches: anorganic – biological - cultural• multi-, inter-, transdisciplinary field• ecology = (meta)science

– dimensions of the ecology• natural• socio-political• ideological

The “Holly Trinity” in Ecology:

Ecology ≈ Ecologism/Environmentalism

Generalities about Philosophy

The Axial Age (V-VI BCE): the born of Philosophy

CHINA

Confucius

INDIASidharthaGautama

GREECE

Socrates

Con

tinui

ty

NowadaysC

ontin

uity

Dis

rupt

ion

Unchanged tradition Philosophy integrated inreligion

Natural philosophydissolved in science

(since 1850)

Ethics: a re-entry story

Ethics is about:

morality and human nature, choices, values, virtue, genetical determinism of the human behaviour, moral relativism, ethical absolutism, cynics, stoics, epicureans, social contract (HOBBES), utilitarianism, (BENTHAM, MILL), duty (KANT), meta-ethics (HUME), subjectivism, objectivism, prescriptivism, existentialism (SARTRE), postmodern neo-tribes, ...

Moralagent

Moralobject

Responsibilities, Duties

from ROZZI, R., s.a. – The Dialectical Links Between Environmental Ethics and Sciences, PAIDEIA, http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Envi/EnviRozz.htm

“L’éthique recommande,la morale commande et le droit décide.”

ABSTRACTREAL

WORLDMETA-ETHICS

ETHICS MORAL CODES

... but, ...

“… moral statements are a puzzle because they don’t appear to fall into the standard categories of empirical or logical knowledge, which philosophers claim are the only ones.”

ROBINSON, D., GARRATT, C., 2003 – Introducing Ethics, Icon Books UK – Totem Books USA

The place of Bioethics:

Meta-ethics Ethics Bioethics Environmental ethics

Beginnings of Bioethics

• 1969, “Patient as Person”Paul Ramsey

• 1970, “Bioethics, the Science of Survival”• 1971 “Bioethics: Bridge to the Future”

Van Rensselaer Potter• 1973, “Bioethics as a Discipline”

Dan Callahan(the first entry of the word “bioethics” in the catalogue of the National Library of Congress)

POST, S. G., 2004 – Encyclopedia of Bioethics, 3rd ed., Macmillan Reference USA – Thompson Gale

Issues in bioethics: abortion; adoption, aging, autoexperimentation; cancer, bioterorism, clinical ethics; chronic illness; cloning; conscience; death; dementia; disability; embryo and fetus; eugenics; fertility control; gender identity; genetic testing and screening; health insurance; infanticide; medical ethics; medical mistakes; neuroethics; nursing; organ and tissues transplant; patient rights; placebo; population policies; private ownership in invention; race and racism; reproductive technologies; right to die; sexism; suicide; warfare; xenotransplants; ...

Conclusion:

The most issues in modern bioethics are humans - related

and, more specificallyhuman medicine - related .

This is a narrow view of Bioethics(Bioethics sensu stricto).

Bioethics means also:

... agriculture and biotechnology; animal research; animal welfare and rights; bioethics in buddhism, christianity, daoism, ...; climate change; endangered species and biodiversity; environmental ethics; environmental policies and law; future generations; hazardous wastes and toxic substances; nanotechnology; profit and commercialism; sustainable development; veterinary ethics; ..

This is Bioethics sensu lato.

B IO E T H IC SE N V IR O N M E N T A L

E T H IC S

Crisis

• Economic• Of energy• Moral• Institutional• Political• Religious• Environmental• ...

“Market capitalism has increased wealth beyond the imagination of previous generations, but cannot, in and of itself, distribute it equally or even equitably. These are problems that cannot be solved within the terms set by modernity, for the simple reason that they are not procedural, but rather valuational or, to use the simple word, moral. There is no way of bypassing difficult moral choices by way of a scientific decision-procedure that states ”Maximize X”. We first have to decide which X we wish to maximize, and how to weigh X against Y when the pursuit of one damages the fulfilment of the other. The human project is inescapably a moral project.”

Jonathan Sacks

“If we are to construct an alternative world-system to the one that is today in grievous crisis, we must treat simultaneously and inextricably the issues of the true and the good.”

http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html

“The aim of education is knowledge, not of facts, but of values.”

W. R. INGE

NATURE(NON-HUMAN) HUMANS

General picture

• nature = ?– (nascilat.) = who give birth)

• environment = ?– things around (around who / what ?)

• nature– dynamic– complex, diverse– resources depot– living creatures + non-living objects– concrete and abstract– wilderness and artificial / anthropic (man made)– independent and dominated– autopoietic, resilient and damaged / fragile– divine (theatre of gods) and vulgar– disected and incomprehensible- limited (at the planet Earth)

“Engineering ecological systems is dangerous. Nature is neither predictable nor inert; rather it is evolutionary and self-modifying.

[...]Ecologists cannot hide behind “pure” science and divorce themselves from the dangerous application of ecology.

[...]Ecology is still a young science”PETERSON et al., 1997 – Ecology, Ethics and Advocacy, Conservation Ecology, 1, 1, URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art17

• humans– individuals, grups, communities, humanity

(species)– increasing in number– dynamic– rational(bases ?) and impredictible– self consciousness– more and more powerfull (increasing impact)– the species that changed dramatycally its (our !)

environment (upgrading (?) the carrying capacity)– living only on Earth– emancipation from the environment ?

How Ethics began ?

Anorganic level

Biological level

Cultural level

Eth

ical

nativ

ism E

thic

alre

alis

m

• “humans and nature” = analitical approach– (anagr. =

– lysisgr. = )– schizophrenic ?

• “humans whitin nature” = holisitc / systemicapproach– holosgr. = whole, entity– species among species ?

Environmental determinism of the cultural level.

NATURE

HUMANS

Perspectives on nature:

Nature

Pragmatic Scientific

Emotional Ethical

• Human societies evolve;

• Environment / nature evolves;↓

CO-EVOLUTION

In which way ?

Major themes in the Environmental History• the history of impacts of natural changes—whether geological,

climatic, or biological—on human societies.• investigation of human impacts on the natural environment in

various places and in selected periods, as well as the ways in which changes caused by those impacts rebound and cause reciprocal changes in human societies

• the study of human thought about and attitudes toward nature, including the scientific study of nature, especially ecology, and the ways in which popular culture and systems of thought such as religions, philosophies, and political ideologies have influenced human relationships to the natural environment.

Scalar approach:• Y = f(time & space)• humanity

– nations• communities

– individuals

What level to apply ethics to ?

Scalar approach

Religious points of view

• animism• hinduism• budhism• taoism• mazdeism• judaism• christianism • islam• …

Animism

• animalat = soul• soul = spirit• everything is animated• stones, trees, animals, … are inhabited by

sprits• (→ Isis, Ishtar, Gaia, Ceres, …)• “Ecologically” correct• “Ethically” ?

“To us modern sophisticates, the great myths of the past appear quaint and fantastic, so straining credulity that we scarcely imagine how people took them seriously. […]

In an age in which human consciousness has long been conditioned by literacy, such tales seem ridiculous, but they reflect the fact that for most of history, humans felt located within a cosmos. The myths themselves were a fabulous expression of a profound intuition – that humans live in a richly layered and alive universe, full of meanings and portents and that their decisions and actions fit within the greater story of nature.”

R. FRODEMAN & J. B. CALLICOTT, 2009

“The truth of myths is not accuracy of description but adequacy of guidance. In those terms, the theory of unending expansion is viciously false. The myth of intrinsic value and biotic equality of all being is profoundly true.”

KOHA, E., s.a. – Truth of the Myths of Nature, PAIDEIA

Hinduism

• everything has a divine nature (Vishnu)

• karma

• transcendence: human condition →divine condition

• diversity of opinions:– bruthas– purush vs. prakriti (sattva, rajas, tamas)– paramanas– mayavada, …

“The one whose self is disciplined by yogaSee the self abiding in every beingAnd sees every being in the self;He sees the same in all beings.When one see pleasures and pain of othersTo be equal to one’s own, o Arjuna,He is considered the highest yogin.”

Bhagavad Gita, VI, 29, 32

Buddhism

• karma, samsara

• dukkha = pain• dharma = moral low

• non-agression• world = moral continuum

• non-attachment

The buddhist concepts rest on:

- a general principle of consequentialism;- a teleology;- a deontology – dharma

Daoism / Confucianism

• Dao = The Way

• Yin & Yang• Confucius: [sky – nature – man]

• pragmatism

Tao principles which should guide the relationship between humanity and nature:

• “Humanity follows the Earth, the Earth follows Heaven, Heaven follows Tao, and Tao follows what is natural.” (let the nature be

itself)

• Everything is composed of two opposite forces. (nature protectors vs. nature

exploiters)

• People should take into full consideration the limits of nature’s sustaining power, so that when they pursue their own development, they have a correct standard of success. (to be too

successful is to be on the path to defeat)

• Taoism has a unique sense of value in that it judges affluence by the number of different species. (verry special contribution to the conservation of nature)

PALMER, M., 2005, in COOPER, D. E. & PALMER, J. A. – Spirit of the Environment, Routledge

“When one hears cry of birds and animals, one will have compassion, because the jen is one with the birds and animals. If one says that animals have senses, then one will have compassion when one sees the grasses and trees faded and broken, because the jen is one with the grasses and animals. If you say that grasses and trees are animated beings, then one will regret when one sees tile-stones collapse, this is because the jen is one with tile-stone.”

Wang Yang-ming (Wang Shou-jen) (1472-1528)

Jen = the innate original knowledge and the principle of the universe at the same time.

(YAMAUCHI, T., 2003, in PALMER, J. A. – Fifty Key Thinkers on the Environment, Routledge )

Mazdeism

• 1000 b.C.

• good nature – bad nature• degradations of the environment

Judaism«The barrier between the western mode of consciousness and the natural world, and the consequent ethical deficiency in western conscience, began in some manner with the biblical emphasis on the perception of the divine in the historical events rather than within cosmological manifestation. The entire biblical experience could be described as a movement from the cosmological to the historical which began with the Exodus experience.»

BERRY, T, 1996 – Ethics and Ecology, URL: http://ecoethics.net/ops/eth&ecol.htm

Christianism

“God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the air, and over every living that moveth upon the eat.”

Genesis, 1:27-28

Islam

“The obligation of the Sharia’ah is to provide the well-being of all mankind, which lies in safeguarding their faith, their human self, their intellect, their progeny, and their wealth.”

Al-Gazali

(BECKER, C., Educating Humanity: From Western to Asian Environmental Ethics, PAIDEIA,at URL http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Comp/CompBeck.htm)

Western Asian

linear cyclical

divine salvation karmic necessity

human dominion human within nature

atomistic mechanistic individualism

organic interdependence

competition cooperation

glorification of wealth respect for humanhood

Modern + postmodern perspectives

• world-machine• relativity• deep-ecology• ecofeminism• New Age• sustainability

1543 - Copernicus

ptolemaic paradigm → heliocentrism

Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

- doctrine of induction-reproductible experiments (empiricism)“Nature to be commanded must be obeyed …”- an Elizabethan scientist-magician who promised so much for the good of the human species, but was willing to destroy or distort at least as much to achieve this end

1637 - Descartes

• res extensa (physicality ) vs. res cogitans (mentality )

Social philosophy / Egocentric ethics

John LOCKE (1632-1704)

- mental corpuscles and forces (associationism)

Thomas HOBBES (1588-1679)

- the social contract (a way for wicked but rational human beings to avoid conflicts)

Maximization of Individual Self-Interest: What is good for the individuals is good for society as a whole

1672 – Isaac Newton

phisics → philosophy

David HUME

(1711-1776)

This doctrine was associated with a trust in the powers of human reason and insight into reality, which possessed God’s certification. -inventor of meta-ethics (the study of moral language, its meaning, function and certainity).- empiricist (all knowledge has to come trough our senses) and sceptic.

Evolutionary biology

• “loyalty to the earth”• man is not inherently superior to

any other animal• God is dead

Friedrich NITZCHE

(1844-1900)

XVIth, XVIIth centuries:

- birth of capitalism

- the Reform (Martin LUTHER, 1483-1546), the call, The Protestant Ethic

- profound mutation from religious to laic / secular

WEBER, M., 1958 – The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Scribner, New York

classical phisics → relativity

Albert EINSTEIN (1879-1955) Werner HEISENBERG (1901-1976)

1935: ecosystem concept

Sir Arthur George TANSLEY (1871-1955)

‘1960s

“… a pale blue dot floating in the inky blackness of space …”

ecology → ecologism / environmentalism

Rachel CARSON (1907-1964)

About “Silent Spring” (1962)

• Time magazine (September, 28, 1962): CARSON’s argument is “unfair, one-sided, and hysterically overemphatic”

• Time magazine, three decades after: Rachel CARSON is one of the most important scientists of the twentieth century

!!!

“What is the value of preserving and strengthening this sense of awe and wonder, this recognition of something beyond the boundaries of human existence ? Is the exploration of the natural world just a pleasant way to pass the golden hours of childhood or is there something deeper ?

I am sure there is something much deeper, something lasting and significant. Those who dwell, as scientists or laymen, among the beauties and mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of live”

R. CARSON, The Sense of Wonder

Lynn White jr. (1907-1987)

The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis“What shall we do? No one yet knows. Unless

we think about fundamentals, our specific measures may produce new backlashes more serious than those they are designed to remedy.”

1972 – Deep ecology“If you hear a phrase like “all life is fundamentally one !”, you must be open to tasting this, before asking immediately “what does it mean ?”. Being more precise does not necessarily create something that is more inspiring.”

Arne NAESS (1912-)

- Biospherical egalitariasm

- Self-realization (indian inspiration),

- SPINOZA influences

-The flourishing of life

The Deep Ecology Platform• 1. The flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth has intrinsic value. The value of non-human life forms

is independent of the usefulness these may have for narrow human purposes. • 2. Richness and diversity of life forms are values in themselves and contribute to the flourishing of human and

non-human life on Earth. • 3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs. • 4. Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening. • 5. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population.

The flourishing of non-human life requires such a decrease. • 6. Significant change of life conditions for the better requires change in policies. These affect basic economic,

technological, and ideological structures. • 7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of intrinsic value) rather

than adhering to a high standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.

• 8. Those who subscribe to the forgoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.

NAESS, A., 1989 - Ecology, Community and Lifestyle, Cambridge, CUP, p. 29.

‘1970s - Ecofeminism

• since Bronze Era: androcentrism• woman assimilated to nature

Françoise d'EAUBONNE (1920-2005) (Val PLUMWWOD)

1979 - Gaïa

James Ephraim LOVELOCK (1919-)

New Age

Fritjof CAPRA (1939-) - ecolitteracy

New Age life-spirituality (or self-spirituality) is characterized by three basic themes:First, life lived out of the ‘ego’ or ‘lower self’ does not work . Life at this level is mechanistic, distorted,

malfunctional. It is replete with neuroses, irritations, unsatisfactory accomplishments , bad habits, good habits which in fact do not work. Life at this level of existence is life lived in terms of what we all are by virtue of socialization, education, parenting—in sum, of what we are by virtue of what has been imposed on us since our birth.

Second, the experience of those involved with New Age spiritualities of life is that from birth (if not before) our true essence is of a spiritual nature . Our life, that is to say, is entirely bound up with, integral to, a spiritual realm which is entirely distinct from that which is acquired from the institutions, structures and values of society and culture. And life lived out of what lies within—the ‘higher self’, ‘source’ or goddess/god—is as perfect as this life can be.

And third, spiritual disciplines are experienced as providing the key to effecting a transformational ‘shift’ from the lower to the higher realm of being. The great cry is practice, engage, find ‘what works for you’, experience it.

WOODHEAD, L., FLETCHER, P., KAWANAMI, H., SMITH, D. (eds.), 2005 – Religions in the Modern World, Routledge, London, New-York

1992 - Rio

• sustainability (roots in 1972)– weak sustainability

– strong sustainability– Environmental integrity

– Economic efficiency– Equity

• between individuals• between generations

Environmental ethics

• applied ethics• ≠ bioethicsroots in ecosophy (Ist wave of enviromnetalism

):– H. D. Thoreau (1854)– J. Muir, T. H. Huxley (1911)

– A. Leopold (1949)– …

connections with the ecotheology, …

- the land ethic

Albert SCHWEITZER (1875-1965)

“The great fault of all ethics hitherto has been that they have believed themselves to have deal only with relation of man to man.”-the ethics of reverence for live-the mystical apprehension of the value of life

Modern times

• 1962 - Silent Spring (R. Carson)• 1968 – The Population Bomb (P. Erlich)• 1972 – The Limits of Growth (D. H. Meadows

et al.)

“ Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.”“We are all the dinner of Tommorow.”

Holmes ROLSTON III

• 1975 ‘‘Is There an Ecological Ethic ?’’

Central issues in environmental ethics

• Does non-human entities have (intrinsic, inherent, per se) value ?

• Anthropocentrism (humanism) vs. biocentrism / ecocentrism

Anthropocentrism (Humanism)

• Biological diversity exists for humans, has not value apart from humans, and need no exist apart from humans.

• The transformation of wild nature into nature resources adds value to nature, since nature possesses value only in human use(instrumental value ).

• The creation of just societies filled with flourishing individuals is the highest achievement of which humans ar capable.

Rationality-based arguments against anthropocentrism• 1) Not all human beings are rational;• (2) Not all nonhuman animals lack rationality;• (3) There is no good reason to restrict

personhood to rational beings.

(if the personhood is based on rationality)

Utilitarianism arguments against anthropocentrism• animal suffering should be included in the

utilitarian calculus (J. BENTHAM !)• utilitarianism, consistently applied, requires

people to take into account the interests of all sentient beings and to give equal interests equal weight in utilitarian calculations (P. SINGER).

Biocentrism• the belief that all forms of life are equally

valuable and humanity is not the center of existence. Biocentric positions generally advocate a focus on the well-being of all life in the consideration of ecological , political, and economic issues.

• the philosophical position that the attributes of living things form the basis of perception , and thereby form the basis of observable reality itself.

Most common objection to Biocentrism• all judgments of value, however nonanthropocentric in

content, are still anthropogenic (Callicott 1992) because they depend on human valuation, and there can be no value in the absence of valuers, (weak biocentrism )

• but … valuable does not mean ‘‘valued’’• normative biocentrism : to treat ethical judgements not as

mere expressions of human valuing but as having truth values of the kind widely recognized as belonging both to moral and to value discourse

Anthropocentric critics to Biocentrism

Sophisticated (enlightened) anthropocentrism includes biocentrism !

Ecocentrism

• a philosophy that recognizes that the ecosphere, rather than any individual organism, is the source and support of all life and as such advises a holistic and eco-centric approach to government, industry, and individual.

Attention !

In many books and articles

Biocentrism = Ecocentrism

Ecocentrism – Partnership Ethics (People and Nature)

• The greatest good for the human and nonhuman communities is their mutual living interdependence.

• Equity between the human and nonhuman communities.• Moral consideration for both humans and other species.• Respect for cultural diversity and biodiversity.• Inclusion of women, minorities, and nonhuman nature in the code

of ethical accountability.• Ecologically sound management is consistent with the continued

health of both the human and nonhuman communities.

Arguments for intrinsic values and biocentrism / ecocentrism:• Religious authority• Expansion of the moral circle (rationality, sentience, …)

• Conativism (“will-to-live”)

• Identification (“We tend to see ourselves in everything alive” A. NAESS)

• Holistic rationalism (“”the diversity, integrity and other similar attributes of biotic communities (and larger units)

are intrinsically good and should be cherished” A. LEOPOLD)

• Interests (“living organisms have interest” telos)

• Bio-empathy (biophilia – E. O. WILLSON)SARKAR, S., 2005 – Biodiversity and Environmental Philosophy. An Introduction, Cambridge University Press

Some defficiencies:

• 1. The weakness of the argument from the will to live

• 2. The impracticality of radical biological egalitarianism

• 3. The theory’s failure to provide practical guidance

• 4. The excessive guilt which the theory requires to bear.

Extentionist approach in environmental ethics

Homocentric ethics

Bio-Ecocentric

ethics

(hapiness)

(unity,stability,diversity,

harmony of ecosystems)

Anthropocentrisme Biocentrisme Ecocentrisme

caractérisation sommaire L’homme est au centre de tout.

L’environnement a une valeur instrumentale.

L’homme est le seul porteur de valeur

intrinsèque, parce qu’il est doué de

rationalité et de sensibilité.

Enraciné dans la culture occidentale et dans

le judéo-christianisme, il accorde beaucoup

d’attention aux notions de justice et droits.

Il existe en plusieurs variantes (dur - strong,

mou - weak, illuminné – enlightened, cinique

- cynical).

Uti, non abuti (utilisez, mais non abusez) –

principe de l’anthropocentrisme modéré (→

utilitarisme, pragmatisme)

Egalitarisme biotique: tout organisme

(pris individuellement !) a une valeur

inhérente, il est un centre de vie

téléologique[1] et un objet moral[2]. Les

organismes vivants possèdent de

manière égale ou dans différents degrés

(différences de nuance) conscience de

soi, rationalité, sensibilité, mémoire,

identité psychologique, désirs etc.

Egalitarisme biosphérique (biospheric

egalitarianism): les espèces, les

communautés (cénoses), les écosystèmes ont

une valeur intrinsèque, parce qu’ils sont les

matrices des organismes. Les communautés,

les écosystèmes doivent être protégés dans

leur intégrité (parfois cela exige de sacrifier

des individus). L’homme fait part de la

communauté biotique, les plantes et les

animaux sont ses compagnons. Idéologie du

partenariat (stweardship) avec la nature.

Promouvoir la beauté, la stabilité et l’intégrité

de la communauté biotique.

limitations / problèmes Egocentrisme. Optimisme exagéré vis-à-vis

des possibilités de la science et de la

technologie. Libéralisme débridé (idéologie

du «cow-boy»). Difficultés d’expliquer

pourquoi l’humanité seule, parmi les autres

créations, compte de point de vue moral.

N’apporte pas de solutions aux aspects

de la crises de l’environnement (érosion

des sols, pollutions diverses etc.).

Existe dans des variantes extrêmes, tournées

contre certains groups humains (kill yourself

to save the planet): fascisme

environnemental, impérialisme culturel

occidental etc. Difficulté d’expliquer les

intérêts des bactéries, montagnes, forêts etc.

de se maintenir, de se développer et d’être

donc des sujets moraux.

Des contradiction, parfois, avec la

démocratie.séparation de l’homme de la nature

quelques auteurs

représentatifs

B. Norton, 1991 – Toward Unity Among

Environmentalists, Oxford University Press,

New York

J. Passmore, 1974 – Man’s Responsibility for

Nature; Ecological Problems and Western

Traditions, Scribner's, New York

K. Shrader-Frechette, 1984 – Science Policy.

Ethics and Economic Methodology, D. Reidel,

Dordrecht

P. Taylor, 1986 – Respect for Nature: a

Theory of environmental Ethics, N.J.

Princeton University Press, Princeton

K. Goodpaster, Sayer, K. M. (eds.), 1979

– Ethics and Problems of the 21st

Century, University of Notre Dame Press,

Notre Dame

J. B. Callicott, 1989 – In Defense of the

Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental

Philosophy, SUNNY Press, Albany

A. Leopold, 1949 – A Sand County Almanac,

Oxford University Press

H. Rolston III, 1975 – Is There an Ecological

Ethics ?, Ethics, 85, : 93-109

A. Naess, 1973 – The Shallow and the Deep,

Long Range Ecology Movement, Inquiry, 16, :

95-100

C. Merchant, 1980 – The death of nature :

Women, ecology and the scientific revolution,

Harper & Row, San Francisco

Environmental ethics: a man-to-man, not man-to-nature business

«Parce que le fait est, à l'évidence, que la sagesse écologique ne consiste pas à vivre en accord avec la nature, elle consiste à savoir comment les sujets se mettent d'accord sur la manière de vivre avec la nature.»

WILBER, K., Une brève histoire de tout,

Organisations

• The International Society for Environmental Ethics -ISEE(1989)

• The International Association for Environmetal Philosophy (1997)

• Periodicals:– Environmental Ethics– Environmental Values

– Ethics and the Environment

The long, long way from theory to policy …

“As environmental ethics approaches its third decade it is faced with a curious problem. On the one hand, the discipline . . . has produced a wide variety of positions and theories in an attempt to derive morally justifiable and adequate environmental policies. On the other hand, it is difficult to see what practical effect the field of environmental ethics has had on the formation of environmental policy.”

in JENKINS (2008)

Practical strategies in Environmental Ethics• The strategy of Ecojustice• The strategy of Christian Stewardship• The strategy of Ecological spirituality

JENKINS, W., 2008 – Ecologies of Grace, Oxford University Press

Conclusions

• Ecologically, Homo sapiens is a social omnivore whit the bigest capacity to change its environment. This capacity increased / increases constantly.

• Firsts ethics that includes environment were religiously determined.

• Two types of ethical-religious approaches:– in-wordly (duality humans / nature)

– out-wordly (holistic)

• Recent evolution: mecanicism → organicism.• Classical ethical frames are not reliable tools

to judge environmental problems.• New ethics appeared in the ‘1960:

environmental ethics.• Two clusters of general approaches in the field

of environmental ethics:– anthropocentrism– biocentrism / ecocentrism.

• Sustainability is to be prouved.• Environmental ethics is a young field.

“We must value nature from our point of view in a total context, which includes our cultural history and our natural history. Nature must be valued, from the ecological-evolutionary viewpoint of environmentalists, in its full contemporary complexity and in its largest temporal dynamic.”

NORTON, B., 1991 -Toward unity among environmentalists, Osford University Press, p. 250

The Ten New Commandments(John PASSMORE)

1. Thou shalt not litter.2. Thou shalt no pollute thy air and water.3. Thou shalt not burn incadenscent light bulbs.4. Thou shalt not drive a Hummer.5. Thou shalt not waste resources.6. Thou shalt recycle.7. Thou shalt eat organic foods.8. Thou shalt reduce thy consumption.9. Thou shalt xeriscape thy lawn.10. Thou shalt install solar-energy panels on thy roof.

“An important issue for scientists is ethics, and more specifically bioethics. The scientists has a general responsibility to the truth, and only there is their responsibility to the society an the world. Ethics is a function of time, location, and knowledge.

[...]We have to continue from the tree of knowledge to the

control of our destiny.”

LEHN, J.-M., 2004 – Science and Society: Some Reflections, in SERAGELDIN, I., PERSLEY, G. J. –Discovery to Delivery, Biovision 2004, Bibliotheca Alexandrina, The Doyle Foundation, p. 28

“Discussion of foundational values, of why we practice agriculture as we do, should become a central, rather than peripheral, part of agricultural practice and education. If agricultural scientists do not venture forth to understand and shape the ethical base of the future, it will be imposed by others.”

Agriculture's Ethical Horizon, Robert Zimdahl, Academic Press, March 2006

“The irony and tragedy of our situation make the stipulation of practical plans of action highly uncertain at best. Yet, it hardly seems moral or prudent to trust blindly in luck. We follow our bliss, in any case, but we do so in wisdom when we acknowledge the irony and tragedy inherent in our story, and when reflection upon these tropes is a perennial theme of our activity. […] We know enough about the environmental impacts of agriculture to make changes in practice, and we know too much about the philosophy of agriculture to remain sanguine about productionist biases. Stewardship, economics, and holism represent partial philosophies for reform, and the ideal of sustainability indicates the end of which reform should be directed. The tensions created when partial philosophies and unachievable ideals are combined only reveal the irony and incompleteness of any attempt at intelligent action. They do not excuse our indolence.”THOMPSON, P., 1995 – The spirit of the soil. Agriculture and environmental ethics, Routledge, London-New York, pp.

168-169

Agriculture – multifunctional

Space Services Production