Environmental ethics

By Philip Cafaro and Richard Primack

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that tries to understand the nature of the good life and our rights and responsibilities toward others, so that we can act on that knowledge. Recently, philosophers have started to consider these questions in relation to nature, itself, largely in response to environmental degradation and the loss of biodiversity. In the process they have created a new discipline called environmental ethics.

Environmental ethicists try to specify appropriate human relationships to the non-human world. In the course of their work they have developed strong ethical arguments for preserving biodiversity. They have also challenged conventional views of happiness, human well-being, and the materialistic values at the base of much modern life.

One of the founders of this new philosophical discipline is a professor at Colorado State University, Holmes Rolston. An active hiker, backpacker and botanist, Rolston published one of the first articles on environmental ethics in 1975; he is sometimes called “the Father of Environmental Ethics.” Rolston credits the mountains of Colorado for inspiring much of his work.

While environmental ethics treats the full range of environmental issues, from air pollution to nuclear risk assessment, this article focuses on ethical issues related to the preservation of biodiversity. In addition to its great economic value, there are two main arguments that philosophers have given for why humans should preserve species and natural ecosystems: intrinsic value arguments and arguments based in our enlightened self-interest.

Intrinsic value arguments

Philosophers often distinguish two main kinds of value in the world: instrumental and intrinsic value. To say that something has instrumental value means someone can use it for his or her purposes. On the other hand, we recognize that some entities have an intrinsic value: a value grounded, not in objects’ usefulness to others, but in what they are themselves.

Human beings, we usually think, have intrinsic value. Because of this, we possess certain rights that no one can legitimately infringe, even if it is in their self-interest to do so. Conversely, we have certain duties towards other people, which specify how we should treat them in various situations. Many environmental ethicists argue that similar duties restrict the morally acceptable treatment of nature. They consider it wrong to destroy a rare woodland or cause a species to go extinct, even if this action is in an individual’s or corporation’s self-interest. Not only have we no right to destroy any species, they argue, we have a moral responsibility actively to protect species from extinction as the result of our activities.

Sometimes philosophers provide “extensionist” arguments for such intrinsic value. Extensionist arguments ask what qualities give intrinsic value to human beings, then assert that some other beings possess these same qualities. For example, one common justification for valuing human beings is our ability to reason. But some of the so-called “higher animals” also seem to possess the rudiments of reason. Chimpanzees and gorillas have been taught sign language involving several hundred words; wolves have an elaborate social life and the ability to coordinate long hunts; dolphins and whales send complex signals that we are just beginning to understand. Many argue that because of these factors, we should not hunt these animals for food or sport, use them in research, nor in general treat them solely as means to our own ends.

Another quality that many people believe gives people moral considerability is sentienceÑthe ability to perceive the surrounding world and feel pleasure and pain. Because many animals are sentient, the argument goes, they, too, deserve to be considered morally.

In addition to extensionist arguments that point up similarities be-tween wild nature and intrinsically valuable
human beings, there are arguments that find value in nature without referring to such similarities. Some philosophers believe it is a mistake to value other beings only for the ways in which they resemble humans. Philosopher Robert Elliot has suggested that natural organisms may have the following properties that give them intrinsic value: “diversity, stability, complexity, beauty, harmony, creativity, organization, intricacy, elegance, and richness.” These are qualities of natural organisms that we can appreciateÑand that may call forth in us responses of personal restraint and active protection. Furthermore, all species represent unique biological solutions to the problem of survival. They have solved the challenges placed before them by their environments and thrived. Shouldn’t we value this?

Anthropocentric denials
of intrinsic value

Skeptics reply that even though some people do value non-human organisms and species, we are not obligated to do so, because only human beings have intrinsic value and genuine rights. Humans have a value beyond all other beings because only we are fully conscious and rational. Unless our actions affect other people, directly or indirectly, any treatment of the natural world is morally acceptable.

Such a viewpoint is anthropocentricÑlocating value solely in human beingsÑand to many it seems the most obvious common sense, while departures from it seem irrational or overly sentimental. The term “tree hugger” expresses this view, suggesting inappropriate sentiments toward trees, leading to inappropriate actions. It also suggests a callous disregard for the interests of people who cut trees for a living, whom we really should care about: consider the bumper sticker, “Hug a Logger, Not a Tree.”

People who value nature counter that anthropocentrism is selfish and unjustified. It would be strange, they say, that the very quality that allows us to understand so much about nature, i.e., our reason, should be used to justify our not caring about it.

Biodiversity and
human flourishing

Ethical arguments based on the intrinsic value of wild nature stress that we should sometimes act altruistically: we should sometimes set aside our personal interests in order to preserve biological diversity. A second kind of ethical argument appeals to a fuller understanding of our self-interest, arguing that preserving biodiversity and developing our knowledge of it will make us better and happier people.

Consider the fact that biological diversity preserves our basic life-support systems of food production, water supply, oxygen replenishment, waste disposal, soil conservation, and more. People are healthier and more productive in clean, intact environments. Arguably, because we depend on this, we should value it. Similarly, biodiversity allows us to create tremendous economic wealth, directly and indirectly.

An article published in Nature in 1997, “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital,” estimated that the world’s ecosystems provide $32 trillion per year of value to people, substantially higher than the $18 trillion per year of goods and services those people produce themselves. In other words, human society could not exist without what the natural world provides us for free, nor could we afford to pay for substitutes even if they existed.

Biodiversity also provides aesthetic and recreational enjoyment, as readers of Trail & Timberline can attest. Nearly everyone enjoys wildlife and landscapes at an aesthetic level, and this is part of a good life. The beauty of a field of wildflowers in Rocky Mountain National Park or a migrating warbler on a spring morning in a city park enriches the lives of those who appreciate them. For many people a high quality of life involves experiencing nature first-hand. Simply reading about species or seeing them in museums, gardens, zoos or videos will not suffice. Hiking, canoeing, nature photography and bird watching are physically, intellectually, and emotionally satisfying. Hundreds of millions of people spend tens of billions of dollars annually in these pursuits, proof enough of their value. As the world becomes more crowded, there are ever diminishing opportunities for aesthetic and recreational encounters with wild nature. If they are not to disappear altogether, they must be consciously preserved.

Biodiversity also furthers artistic expression. Throughout history poets, writers, painters, sculptors, and musicians of all cultures have drawn inspiration from wild nature. Nature provides countless forms and symbols for visual artists to render and interpret, while poets have often found their greatest inspiration in wild nature or pastoral countryside. A loss in biological diversity could very well limit the creative energies of people in the future and thus restrict the development of human culture. For example, if many species of alpine wildflowers go extinct in the next century due to global warming, important images will be lost to the direct experience of future generations of artists. Likewise, if the ridges of the Front Range become covered with houses and the landscape from Pueblo to Fort Collins becomes an uninterrupted mass of development, our artists are bound to become just as uninspired and uninspiring.

Like art, our growing knowledge of nature through science is one of humanity’s greatest achievements. This knowledge is facilitated by the preservation of wild nature. Wild areas allow the study of natural ecological interactions. Wild species preserve the record of evolution. Young people are inspired to become scientists through personal contacts with nature, while those who do not pursue science professionally can take a basic scientific knowledge and apply it to an understanding of local fields, forests, and streams.

Finally, biodiversity furthers historical understanding and religious inspiration. Knowing nature, especially through personal experience, is a key to understanding human history. In walking the landscapes our ancestors walked, we gain insight into how they experienced the world at a slower pace and without mechanized aids. People often forget just how recently mankind has moved to ultrafast transportation, fully illuminated cities that shut out the night, and other aspects of modern life. Preserving natural areas allows us to develop our historical imaginations.

When surrounded by the artifacts of civilization, our minds stay fully focused on human purposes and our everyday lives. Being in nature allows us to clear and focus our minds and sometimes experience the transcendent. Thus, many religions have traditions of “wandering in the wilderness” in order to commune with God or with spirits. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, Moses, Isaiah, Jesus and St. Francis of Assisi all sought the solitude of wilderness. So did the Chinese sage, Lao-tzu, the Japanese Zen poet, Basho, and generations of Lakota vision-seekers. Religion probably would not disappear from a totally tamed human environment, but perhaps, for many people, it would become diminished.

To sum up: while the preservation of biodiversity sets limits on some human activities, it is necessary for our continued enjoyment of others. There are good reasons to believe that preserving and exploring biodiversity and wild landscapes makes us better, happier people. Many environmental philosophers are convinced that a better understanding of our true self-interest would lead to greater efforts to protect biological diversity. P

A former ranger with the National Park Service, Phil Cafaro now teaches environmental ethics and ethical theory at Colorado State University. His book Henry Thoreau’s Living Ethics will be published by the University of Georgia Press in 2004.

Richard Primack is a professor of biology, specializing in tropical ecology, at Boston University. He is the author of Essentials of Conservation Biology, first published in 1993, and now in its third edition. It has been translated into a dozen languages worldwide, including Italian and Indonesian, and is the best-selling text in conservation biology in the world.