Final Essay - Grade: B+ PDF

Preview

Summary

The essay was an open ended assignment, a 10 page paper discussing and analyzing one of several arguments we had covered. I chose to write on the anthropocene and anthropocentric ethical problems. ...

Description

Madeline Wade #113396323 PHIL 3293 Final Essay Prep 1 3. Discuss the framing of environmental ethics as either anthropocentric or nonanthropocentric. What do these concepts means and how to they change/limit what environmental ethics is? What seems to be required of a non-anthropocentric ethics and what is mere extensionalism of anthropocentric ethics and what are the advantages and disadvantages of mere extensionalism according to the readings? See Chapter 5 and 6 as well as Holmes Rolston III’s essay from canvas for sources and examples. The framing of the discourses and debates that corporations, government officials, policy makers, and philosophers alike can determine the scope of their argument, its context, and the underlying goals that drive it. Ethics, right or wrong, have often centered around humans. Is this action right for a human to do? Will this action cause harm to other humans? Aside from anthropogenic subject matter, the world does not seem to be judged or treated according to an ethical guideline. Environmental ethics aims to use principals defined in ethics and adjust their parameters and interpret their messages to apply them to the natural world and the environment. Environmental ethics may still surround humans. But, when presented through certain discourses, it may absolve humans of some of their long-term responsibility. It may only focus on the consequences of environmental activity specifically to humans, considering food supply and resources rather than organisms and ecosystems. Additionally, an anthropocentric view of the world may be responsible for much of our ecological crisis. Political systems like capitalism that rely on over accumulation of resources are designed for market failure through

the exploitation of the environment or humans. We have manipulated our nature to adhere to our preferred contexts. Non-anthropocentric ethics, while appearing more holistic and ecologically considerate, may lead to moral judgements that threatens the well-being of humans. Land or animal ethicists may believe ecosystems, plants, and animals deserve the same rights and protections given to humans. A non-anthropocentric utilitarian philosopher may believe the death of a large part of the human population would be beneficial for the Earth. If humans are treated with no more regard than animals or plants, it can lead to the ignorance of humanitarian injustices and a disregard for human rights or lives.

Final Essay Prep 2 2.Discuss the concepts of intrinsic value and instrumental value as they inform the background of a lot of early and current environmental ethics as well as the concept of having interests as the foundation of moral value. See Feinberg, Stone, Singer, Regan, and Goodpaster for understandings of moral value based on particular definitions of interests. See pgs 105-119 and 130-132 in E.E. for examples. Related to the topic of framing within and beyond the Anthropocene, the notion of intrinsic versus instrumental values comes up in many debates. These topics are closely related. Instrumental value is practically defined by the context of humans and their needs and interests. Instrumental does not often refer to a particularly important ecological niche or fire that naturally cleanses the forest in preparation for new life. Instrumental value is given to things that benefit humans, but seemingly serve no purpose otherwise. Fresh water, a ship, the sun, all have instrumental value because they supply the human with what they need to

survive. They are manipulated and commoditized by the human to stretch their value even further. The difference between intrinsic and instrumental value is simply a viewpoint. Some would argue that everything provides intrinsic value to some organism or biological process. Nothing is truly useless. Many would argue that even if it is, it should be valued because of its current relationship with the ecosystem.

Final Essay Prep 3 I have chosen to dissect the concept of anthropocentric ethics, and evaluate the extent to which the Anthropocene has contributed to the ecological crisis through colonization, deforestation, and industrial activity. I will discuss the viewpoints of anthropocentric ethics and nonanthropocentric ethics to evaluate their effectiveness in mitigating or preventing the deeply rooted causes of climate change. I will use arguments from Lynn White, Kyle Powel Whyte, and others to evaluate and produce arguments that encompass all sides and parties involved. Lynn White discusses the root of our ecological crisis in the Anthropocene and the political and social implications. Kyle Powel Whyte discusses the man-made environmental injustices that come as a result of anthropocentric ethically guided decisions.

Final Essay Ethics, as an area of philosophical study, often focuses on what is right or wrong within the context of human behavior and the consequences one’s actions may have on other humans. Our nearly exclusively anthropocentric approach to ethics comes under challenge when it comes to the environment. A long tradition of limitless consumption, free-market economy, and an ethical compass guided by humans has resulted in a global ecological crisis that threatens ecosystems and humans alike. Through a simple framing of an ethical dilemma, the solutions that lead to the most holistically sound and ethical decision vary greatly. By viewing environmental ethics through an anthropocentric or non-anthropocentric frame, we encounter arguments that provide very different paths for blame and remediation. Anthropocentric ethics is focused on the effects of environmental crises on humans. It is concerned with the environmental consequences relating to human rights and human wellness. The Anthropocene in general, including the social and ethical thought processes associated with this social construction of nature, is based in a history of environmental injustice and depends on principals that are defined by an eventual environmental or market failure. Thinking ethically about whether a decision is right or wrong depends on defining the value of the things involved and the footprint as well as social consequences of the action. Value, as most concepts, can be perceived differently through anthropocentric or nonanthropocentric frames. Value itself exists only through human perceptions and social norms, so value is inherently anthropogenic, meaning related to humans, although it is not anthropocentric, concerned exclusively with humans (Rolston III, pg. 14). The gap between anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism is whether value is exclusively and inherently

applied to human beings. According to anthropocentric ethics, only humans have moral value. Many other frames of mind vary on the extent to which non-human subjects have value, which will be discussed later in this analysis. To understand a hypothetical construct such as value, we must define the word in a more operational way. There are two basic classes of value, intrinsic value and instrumental value. Holmes Rolston III distinguished between the intrinsic and instrumental value of his example, a tree, by writing “Intrinsic means without instrumental reference but that leaves unsettled whether the value is located in the tree independently, autonomously intrinsic, or placed on the tree upon our arrival. We cannot just take it as elementary there is no such thing as non-human value” (Rolston III, pg. 15). Anthropocentric ethics would argue humans are the only ones capable of having or assigning value. The behavior of many animals, as Rolston points out, mirrors the value we assign to our children, our families, and ourselves. Animals will protect others that share genetic information to them, if the benefit to a relative outweighs the cost to themselves. This behavior is in the basis of our DNA and allows for the survival of our kin. To suggest value is only derived through the rational mind of a human is disputed by thousands of examples in nature. So, if animals can value, do they deserve to be regarded as valuable? The phrase “If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?” comes to mind during this discussion. Of course, the tree makes a sound. Just the same as it has value without the presence of humans. This phrase has new meaning, or maybe I’ve just come to understand what it means. Either way, the obvious answer to the old riddle can easily be applied to the question of non-human value. People always ask how ecological issues affect them or alter their lives in anyway. The point is we aren’t sure. We don’t know the long-term ecological consequences of our current rapid rates of habitat destruction,

carbon emission, and water pollution. But, evolutionary biologists believe we are experiencing the beginning of the sixth major extinction event which would be the first so disproportionately influenced by the behavior of one species. Non-anthropogenic ethics Although anthropocentrism is responsible for dramatic changes to the natural environment in a short amount of time, to practice non-anthropocentric ethics could also result in injustices, loss of life, and more social than natural consequences. From land ethicists to animal rights activists, philosophers of all different studies have applied extended moral value beyond the human world. Land ethicists believe bodies of water, ecosystems, and landmarks should be preserved and kept away from human hands. Nonanthropocentric ethical codes overcome the anthropogenic nature of value and use its principles and the shared characteristics of humans and non-humans to justify the valuing of nature. Logically, these philosophies seem sound. If an animal is capable of valuing just as humans are, they should in turn be worthy of value. Non-anthropocentrism may even favor the rights of animals over humans, which would lead to social ethical dismissal of their arguments. Some animal rights activists argue all animals are equal, including humans (Singer, pg. 6). They argue value is extended to animals through sentience. An animal can suffer and experience pain and distress just as a human, thus, to apply this distress to an animal, by butchering it for example, is unethical. The problem with this argument is it demands moral equality between animals and humans. The cultural ideas of animals are unlikely to be influenced by nonanthropocentric ethical arguments. Tyson chicken will not shut down the day after reading Singer’s arguments. In reality, the animal rights movement is experiencing its first significant

steps toward this goal. Animal testing is becoming more taboo, and animal rights such as free roaming vs. caged are important factors in many consumer’s decision making. The source of many of our ecological problems is anthropocentric in nature, as is discussed by Lynn White in the renowned piece “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis”. This essay discusses how our relationship of applying science and technology to nature is anthropocentric and every aspect nature is socially constructed or altered by humans in some way. Human activity, specifically those decisions made with an anthropocentric ethical maxim, has touched nearly every inch of our planet. It is more Western culture, rather than human activity in general, that has been responsible for the majority of our environmental problems. Dogmas of frontierism and western expansion as well as global colonialism have dominated American goals and values since its inception. John Locke, a famous founding father of the United States, demonstrated these dogmas through his declaration of rights to “life, liberty, and property”. A phrase that has been modified over the years, these words have deep implications on what defines property, who can own it, and what it means for the Earth. John Locke argued that men had the right to manipulate and change the land to transform it into their property. Unworked land, or wilderness, was seen as useless and a waste by this Utilitarian leader. Blackstone argues that none of these human rights can be fulfilled without a suitable environment, and thus a fourth right “the right to a livable environment” should be included in this list (Blackstone, pg. 21). The right to property, as it turns out, favored only white men capable of working and maintaining land. The movement of frontierism in the form of “manifest destiny” drastically changed the way people thought about nature. What was wilderness was now buyable land. Globally, a colonialist frame of mind has led to massive removals of

indigenous groups, deforestation, and a consumption of fossil fuels that have all contributed significantly to global climate change and its associated ecological destruction. Through an anthropocentric frame and the eyes of the founding fathers and many American leaders that followed, there is nothing unethical about frontierism and development. By the ideals of manifest destiny, it was God’s plan for humans to have dominion over their environment and manipulate the land for their individual benefit. The idea of wilderness was seen as wasteful and barren, waiting for man to dominate and make the land fruitful (Cronon pg. 88). John Locke’s famous idea of “the right to life, liberty, and property” was defined by a destruction of nature for the benefit of man. A man’s land did not belong to hum until he had worked the land or built upon it. Because John Locke was a believer in Natural Law, people believed these rules were the will of God. But, this left out a lot of Native American communities that base their lifestyles on a harmony with nature (Whyte, pg. 88). The example of indigenous cultures all over the world demonstrating the possibility of interacting sustainably and respectfully with the natural world is particularly powerful. Many indigenous societies are practically designed on the concept that “society must be organized to constantly adapt to environmental change” (Whyte, pg. 91). The cyclical history of removal of large groups of indigenous people has led to changing geographical states and an associated removal of cultural significance. The beginning signs of recurring environmental injustice against indigenous groups has led to their voices being some of the loudest in the current climate movement (Whyte, pg. 88). These groups understand that previous environmental injustices have led to a disappearance of their culture and a disrespect of their lifestyle. By erasing this

lifestyle, settler colonialism compartmentalizes these groups and applies institutions that reduce their ability to adapt to the environment. The practice of settler colonialism, a system of inflicting change and oppression that specifically involves one society settling the territories of another society (Whyte, pg 91). Through colonialism and capital economics, including the right to property, mobile groups had no rights to their land or their practices. The century old tradition of seasonal round, choosing foods based on season and plenty was challenged by compartmentalization and removal. Additionally, the self-determination that defined many tribal and indigenous societies was warped to assimilate to capitalist socioeconomic systems, essentially stripping them off any wealth or status they had achieved in their own economic system. However, these groups also know, perhaps better than anyone, how to adapt to climate change. Their practice of seasonal round could provide a global example for how to maintain the viability and current level of diversity of life on our planet. Seasonal round is designed to change based on local ecological conditions, time of year, current weather patterns, and many other environmental factors. At the heart of many anthropocentric environmental destruction events is something almost inherently Western, Christianity. Christianity, as a social structure, rather than by the fundamentals of the faith, has led to certain dogmas that are ingrained in our thought processes and ethical decisions today (White, pg. 1205). Christianity put a large emphasis on our dominion over nature and our otherness in the animal kingdom. It also emphasized a greater good that wouldn’t let anything awful happen to us. Despite what we know about science, we see ourselves as above and beyond the natural world, immune to the consequences of our actions. This belief comes from Christian stories of creation of man being made in God’s image and

being given responsibility or dominion over other animals and nature. By doing this, God deemed man as holier than species, as transcendent of nature. Through the socialization of Christianity, practices like colonialism and holy wars were seen as right and ethical. Destruction of nature for commodity and individual benefit became the norm. The societal construction of Christianity and the Anthropocene in general adopted these practices and values while ignoring many others, such as humility, blessings in poverty, and generosity. Somehow, Christians began to pursue limitless individual success and power over nature and saw it as a fundamental value of their faith. From a political economy view, the anthropocentric ethical frame also poses problems. Paul Krugman argues that individuals’ pursuit of their own goals is bad for society as a whole (Krugman, p. 32). Marx points out the over accumulation of wealth through the exploitation of workers or the environment will lead to market failure by the very definition of capitalism (Marx, Ch. 1). In order to make a profit, a business owner must either over exploit nature or people. To create surplus value, value must be stripped from another area. Concepts of value through ethics and economics are usually regarded differently, although in this case the principle of value is the same. Value is stripped from the tree by cutting it down using unsustainable practices. Thus, surplus value is created to benefit man by exploiting nature. Moral value is the same. We strip the natural world of its intrinsic value in an effort to cultivate it into something that provides more value for ourselves. Political economics have also been used to propose solutions to economic problems. Free-market environmentalists hold utilitarian ethical ideas; they aim to produce the most good for the greatest number of people, ideally resulting in public lands being sold to the highest bidder (Krugman pg. 112). In this way, an

economic approach enacts a specific philosophy that is inherently anthropocentric. Indeed, it seems our entire economic system is anthropocentric and to avoid this system is functionally difficult. The presence of anthropocentric ethical systems are overwhelmingly present through the past and present in the form of environmental injustice, transcendence above nature through wide-spread Christian norms, and the cyclical history of settler colonialism. Western anthropocentrism has especially contributed to the increasingly urgent threat of climate change. These deeply rooted cultural concepts of colonialism and capitalism are resistant to change, but a shift in these institutions is necessary if ethical value is to be extended beyond the human world to the extent necessary for our ecological crisis to be mediated.

Krugman, Paul, Wells, Robin, Economics, Worth Publishers, New York, (2006) pg. 30-115. Marx, Karl (1992). Chapter 1: Commodities – Capital, Volume 1. Penguin Classics. William Cronon, William. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, New York: W. W. Norton & Co. (1995) 69-90. Rolston, Holmes. "Value in Nature and the Nature of Value." Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 36 (1994): 13-30. White, Lynn. "The historical roots of our ecologic crisis." Science 155.3767 (1967): 1203-1207. Blackstone, William. “Ethics and Ecology”. Philosophy and environmental Crisis (Athens: University of Georgia Press (1974): 16-42. Singer, Peter. "All animals are equal." Philosophic Exchange5.1 (1974): 6....