Environmental PhilosophyEthics An Overview by J Baird Callicott

Environmental Philosophy/Ethics: An Overview by 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 Center Annapolis, Maryland September 9, 2014

Outline Origins of environmental philosophy and ethics as an academic field Social 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 Point by 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 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 and Western Traditions, by John Passmore (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974) First journal— 1979 Environmental Ethics: An Interdisciplinary Journal Dedicated to the Philosophical Aspects of Environmental Problems Eugene C. Hargrove, founding editor

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 Rolston Naess Hargrove Routley Passmore

Context of Environmental Ethics as a Field of Study Environmental Crisis of the 1960 s—oil spills on beaches, rivers polluted with municipal and industrial waste, indiscriminate use 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, Civil Rights Movement—> demand for relevancy in the classroom Photos of a beautiful blue planet Earth—taken by Apollo 8, 10, & 11 astronauts (including by the late Neil Armstrong) from the moon. First National Earth Day 1970—sponsored by Representative Pete Mc. Closkey (R. Cal. ) and Senator Gaylord Nelson (D. Wis. )

Major Precursors of Environmental Ethics Henry David Thoreau John Muir Aldo Leopold 1817 -1862 1838 -1914 1887 -1948 HDT: Nature has “higher uses”—aesthetic, spiritual, as well as material —anthropocentric (human-centered) / cultural ecosystem services JM: 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

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 18 th 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 getting nowhere because it is incompatible with our Abrahamic concept of land. We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect. That land is 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 fundamentals, 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 of the 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 1970 s, White made some of us philosophers feel like only we could save the world from a worsening environmental crisis. Because to do anything effective about it depended on first thinking 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 who preached to animals and converted a rogue wolf to Christianity); (2) turn to 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 from an 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 or worldview 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 network or 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 a hodge-podge of essays, wildly varying in length and topic, divided into three parts: I. “the shack sketches” organized by months of the year and all set on the Leopold farmstead. II. Sketches Here and There scattered across the 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 for better or worse Example Rachel Carson: bioaccumulation of organochlorides causes cancer in humans But her title “Silent Spring” expands anthropocentrism in the direction indicated by Thoreau—Nature has “higher uses”; humans may be deprived of bird songs and many other “psycho-spiritual resources” (or cultural services).

Major Fault Lines in Environmental Ethics: Anthropocentrism vs 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 (Lawrence Johnson) 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 ends Paradigm cases: cars, clothes, tools, etc. Problematic cases: humans (human trafficking) Intrinsic value: The value of something as an end in itself Paradigm cases: human beings Problematic cases: animals of various sorts; species; biodiversity; ecosystems Not mutually exclusive: many things have both kinds of value Paradigm cases: employees; spouses Problematic 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 parks money 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 is to remove it from the econosphere —paradigm case: the prohibition of slavery (and all forms of “human trafficking”) Corollary 1: intrinsic value ≠ existence value; existence value can be shadow priced; things of intrinsic value should not be Corollary 2: all values are not preferences. E. g. , slavery is 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 objective property 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 things legislatively or jurisprudentially awarded it.

Major Fault Lines in Environmental Ethics: Instrumental vs Intrinsic Value Interactions between things having intrinsic value and things having only instrumental value in the real world— (1) Trade-offs: Having intrinsic value shifts the burden of proof from defender to destroyer. Legal analog: “innocent until proven guilty” Economic analog: Safe Minimum Standard alternative 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

Major Fault Lines in Environmental Ethics: Instrumental vs Intrinsic Value 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 is one 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: Individualism vs. Holism Modern Western ethics has been both militantly anthropocentric and militantly individualistic Animal liberation and animal rights are non-anthropocentric, but also individualistic. 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 the land community to plain member and citizen of it; it implies respect for fellow-members and for the community as such. ” “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. ”

Major Sub-fields in Environmental Philosophy: Ecofeminism Emerged in the 1980 s as a synthesis of environmental ethics and feminist philosophy Main premise: feminist analysis of social injustices: a “logic of oppression” based on historical hierarchical dualisms— male/female; civilized/savage; master/slave can be applied 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 1980 s 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 1980 s as a synthesis of comparative philosophy (Western with non-Western, mainly Asian) and environmental philosophy Main premise: Non-western traditions of thought (Buddhist, Daoist Confucian, 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 1990 s 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 1990 s 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, because different 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 1990 s in response to the globalization of the environmental crisis in the 1980 s: biodiversity loss, thinning of the ozone membrane, global climate change. Main focus: international environmental justice (those most vulnerable are those least responsible) and intergenerational justice—in response to the planetary spatial and millennial temporal scales of climate change Principle architects: Michel Serres, Dale Jamieson, Stephen Gardiner