Environmental Ethics:
Reconstructing Ecology
On the Rights of Future Generations
Holes in the Cornucopia
With Liberty and Justice for Some
In Search of Sustainable Values
What is the Future Worth Today?
The Foundations of Aldo
Leopold's Land Ethic
Are We Capable
of an Ecological Morality?\
Environmental Responsibility:
The Burden of Progress
Environmental Policy-Making
by the Numbers
The Value of Wilderness and
Other Useless Things
Public Policy:
On Civic Friendship
A Funny Thing Happened on the
Way to Armageddon.
The Rights and Wrongs of
Animal Liberation
Critical Thinking, and the
Duty to be Rational.
ABSTRACTS
Reconstructing Ecology
Answers recent attacks on such cherished ecological concepts as
"stability," "equilibrium," "integrity" and
"community," by such biologists as Michael Soule, Daniel Botkin, and
by the philosopher Mark Sagoff. Granted, many "classical ecologists"
have overstated these concepts. However, the opposing account of nature as a
chaotic "hodgepodge" of coexisting species is indefensible. Evolution
presupposes order, stability, and symbiosis among species, albeit within a
condition of constant change. Ecological theory is falsifiable and predictive,
and employs valid classification schemes. Finally, normative terms such as
"ecosystemic health" and "integrity" are meaningful.
On the Rights of Future Generations
The "rights," at time-present, of future persons have been
dismissed on the grounds that future persons are non-actual, indeterminate as
individuals, and incapable of making claims against present
persons. I reply that these arguments correctly refute some
categories of moral rights of future generations, namely so-called active
rights to choose to do, or refrain from doing, certain things.
However, future generations have passive rights claims (e.g., of
non-malfeasance) upon the present generation. Some policy implications of
this conclusion.
Holes in the Cornucopia
Secure in their confidence in neo-classical economic theory, many economists
believe that human ingenuity combined with the profit motive can overcome any
and all future environmental problems, and that human population and consumption
can grow forever. In the words of a principle defender of this view, Julian
Simon, ""There is no reason to believe that at any given moment in the
future the available quantity of any natural resource or service at present
prices will be much smaller than it is now, or non-existent...We now have in our
hands in our libraries, really the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy
to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years... We [are] able to
go on increasing forever." Although this optimistic view is overwhelmingly
rejected by informed scientific opinion, it should nonetheless be taken very
seriously for the simple reason that the political-economic paradigm of endless
resources and constant growth dominates the thinking of those who establish and
implement governmental and corporate policies throughout the developed
world. Nonetheless, "cornucopism" is fundamentally flawed, in
that (a) it disregards fundamental scientific facts about ecology and other
environmental sciences, (b) it regards nature as a mechanical rather than a
systemic order, (c) it disregards the economic significance of "biological
services," and (d) it totally ignores the significance of the fundamental
physical principle of entropy.
With Liberty and Justice for Some
A critique of libertarianism, with particular attention to libertarian
policies regarding environmental pollution. Libertarians argue that the natural
environment will be best protected if it is privatized, and if environmental
degradation and pollution are regarded as "assaults" upon the lives,
liberty and property of free and equal citizens, best dealt with in courts of
law. History discloses why unrestricted free markets and individual
rights are inadequate to the task of protecting the natural environment.
Prominent among these reasons are: (a) unregulated privatism leads to "the
tragedy of the commons" -- personal gain at the externalized cost of
degrading such natural resources as the common atmosphere, oceans, nutrient
cycles, wildlife, etc. (b) Libertarians regard politically and morally
well-ordered social orders as "free gifts" to which nothing is owed
(e.g. in taxation) for their maintenance. (c) The libertarian solution is
reactive rather than proactive, and "an ounce of (environmental) prevention
is worth a pound of cure." (d) Rather than eliminating "big government
interference," the libertarian solution of "courts and torts"
presupposes an equally large and intrusive judicial (and thus governmental)
apparatus. (e) In cases of "contributory assaults" and
"statistical casualties," claims for environmental damages proven
beyond reasonable doubt can nonetheless fail in courts of law. These
considerations, for example, have allowed the tobacco companies to win every
injury case brought against them. (f) Under the libertarian scheme "equal
justice under law" is abolished, as overwhelming advantage accrues to the
wealthy and powerful at the expense of the unrepresented -- the poor, non-human
animals, the very young and old, and future generations.
In Search of Sustainable Values
Neo-classical economic theory, and in particular its application to public
policy-making – cost -benefit analysis, interprets social values in
economic terms – put bluntly, in terms of money. In the words of two
economists, "the benefit of any good or service is simply it value to a
consumer," and "anything that can be valued instrumentally... can in
principle be handled by economics, be it friendship or love." Despite the
considerable attraction to policy makers of the monetization of values, this
theory and practice has pernicious results. Most of all, it strips all values of
their moral quality, it devalues civic loyalty, and it discounts
long-term commitment to the welfare of the natural environment and future
generations.
What is the Future Worth
Today?
Can we truly care about the remote future, inhabited by
individuals who will live long after we have departed, with values we
likely do not share? If we do care, how is this possible? And yet,
since we can knowingly and significantly affect the future for better
or for worse, how can we evade responsibility for our legacy to
future generations? I argue that to the degree which we "trash"
nature and future, we morally and emotionally impoverish ourselves.
Thus, in a strange and paradoxical sense, future generations can
psychologically "reward" us for our provision in their behalf. The
presentation closes with policy recommendations in behalf of future
generations, and by implication in behalf or ourselves.
Foundations of Aldo Leopold's Land
Ethic
Aldo Leopold gave the world a unique and timely view of humanity's
place in, and responsibility to, the nature which produced and which
sustains our species. He did so with extraordinary eloquence, and
from the perspective of a distinguished life scientist. But while
Leopold's "Land Ethic" is one of the founding documents of modern
environmental ethics, it is not, strictly speaking, a philosophical
work. This presentation is a philosopher's attempt to identify and to
assess the fundamental concepts and assumptions of Leopold's Land
Ethic.
Are We Capable of an Ecological
Morality?
The environmental movement proclaims
and ethic of responsibility toward nature and the remote future.
However, such an ethic assumes a capacity to recognize and
to make the sacrifices required to meet these responsibilities:
"ought implies can." Unfortunately, there is abundant
evidence today that most individuals and institutions have
extraordinary capacities to evade their responsibilities as members
of the ecological community of the planet. Nonetheless, I argue that,
in theory at least, human beings can care enough about their planet
and the future of their species, to act in a morally appropriate
manner toward both. However, such a realization requires an heroic
commitment by political and social institutions, along with virtuoso
feats of moral education. At the moment, the prospects are not
promising. Even so, I propose a program to morally arm ourselves and
our fellow citizens to meet our planetary
responsibilities.
Environmental Responsibility: The
Burden of Progress
The advancement of human knowledge through the sciences, and of
human capacity through technology, have brought us to a time in our
history at which we can no longer deny responsibility to nature or to
the future. Technology has made both nature and the future vulnerable
to our policies and activities, and science has made us aware of
these vulnerabilities. And with capacity, choice, and
knowledge along with anticipated impacts upon the
rights and welfare of present and future persons,
necessarily comes moral responsibility. Even so, many
scientists, scholars, technologists, and even public policy-makers,
attempt to evade evaluation, and thus responsibility, by claiming
that their disciplines are "objective" and "value-free." The most
troubling aspect of this claim is that it is a "half-truth," and the
that truthful half is based on quite correct assumptions. The
remaining half and its troubling implications are given close,
critical scrutiny.
Environmental Policy-Making by the
Numbers
To a significant degree, public policy-making has been captured by
"green-eyeshade" cost-accountants and economists who propose to
settle policy decisions "by the numbers" -- that is to say, by
quantifying values in monetary terms, then comparing the cash gains
and losses in the alternative options. This method has the apparent
advantage of being "objective," in that it reflects the manifest
values of the citizens, and as such the method is regarded by its
proponents as "value neutral." In rebuttal, I will argue that, rather
than being "value-free," standard "cost-benefit policy analysis"
presupposes an ethical theory that is not only controversial, but
contrary to fundamental ethical and political principles of our
civilization.
The Value of Wilderness and Other
Useless Things
Defenders of Wilderness have often made the grave tactical error
of "playing by the opponent's rules." The "opponents," in this case
are the so-called "anthropocentrists" who hold that the only
justification in preserving wilderness is its value to human beings,
and that, conversely, whenever such land is found to be more "useful"
if it is developed, the wilderness should "yield" to human needs.
While, the preservationist is, of course, entitled to defend
wilderness in terms of it's "uses" and values to human beings, he all
too often feels constrained to limit his arguments to such
anthropocentric values. If he does, he will likely lose the debate.
Some "non-anthropocentric" arguments for wilderness preservation are
offered -- arguments which suggest that, paradoxically, to the degree
to which wilderness is regarded as valuable in itself, to that degree
it may become valuable to us.
On Civic Friendship
Though the United States is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and
multi-religious nation-state, it does not suffer from the tribal turmoil found
in other countries with diverse populations. We enjoy domestic tranquility
because we share fundamental concepts of justice – a "civic
friendship." However, our "well-ordered society" is being eroded
by a competing conception, that of "the private society" composed of
autonomous, self-serving individuals. The contrast between these competing
conceptions of society, which roughly define what are popularly called,
respectively, "liberalism" and "conservatism," is
exemplified in most of the public and political issues of the moment.
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to
Armageddon.
How lucky it is that we are all alive
today! The ideological fixations and institutional imperatives of the
Cold War bred a collective irrationality which led both sides
perilously close to mutual annihilation -- all in the name,
paradoxically, of "national defense." The means of
"deterrence" became itself a far greater threat than the hypothetical
aggression which it was designed to deter. In defense of this claim,
particular attention is given to the "Korean Airline Incident" of
1983. Only with the end of the "Cold War" can we begin to face the
fact, and the implications, of our collective irrationality.
The Rights and Wrongs of Animal
Liberation
Much of the program of the "animal liberation movement" is morally
commendable. The treatment of our fellow creatures at many scientific
laboratories and at industrialized farms, demands moral concern and
remedial action. However, "animal liberation," like all movements
devoted to a single principle, flirts with a fanaticism which shouts
down qualifications and reservations from competing moral concerns.
In this case, the attempt of animal rights advocates to elevate the
moral status of non-human species, succeeds instead in devaluing
humanity. And their attempts to devise an "environmental ethic"
ignore fundamental ecological principles as they focus, not on the
integrity of ecosystems, but on the welfare of the constituent
individuals of those systems.
Critical Thinking, and the Duty to be
Rational.
It is generally assumed that critical intelligence is an essential
component of education, and a significant requirement for the
maintenance of a free society and a democratic government. Yet
numerous fortunes have been gained, and elective offices won, on the
assumption (in the words of H. L. Mencken) that "nobody ever went
broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public." In
fact, the low intellectual sales-resistance of our students and our
fellow citizens is not only a national embarrassment, it is a threat
to our free institutions. But it is a condition which can be remedied
by proven methods of education and principles of rational thinking.
Given the stakes, it is the clear responsibility of the educator, and
the informed citizen, to teach, to promote and to practice critical
thinking.
