Part II: Constructing and Testing Ethical Presumptions
In part II, chapters 4–7 consider arguments for intrinsic values concerning our duty, character, relationships, and rights. Chapter 8 analyzes ethical arguments that rely only on predicting the likely consequences of taking an action.
Chapter 4 concerns doing ourduty. Traditional moral philosophy holds that we have a direct duty to respect others and only an indirect duty to nature, but Gandhi affirmed a duty of nonviolence to all animals. How are we to understand our duty to ecosystems, species, landscapes, and animals in our care? Jews and Muslims draw inferences from their scriptures about human responsibility for the earth. John Locke and Thomas Jefferson argued that governments have a duty to protect God-given rights and to preserve the commons for future generations. Following the Golden Rule seems to mean accepting a duty to future generations as well as to people in this generation who are struggling to survive.
Chapter 5 considers beinga good person. The natural law and Tao traditions affirm what reason and nature reveal about character and virtue. Stories of Antigone and Socrates, as well as children’s stories, portray being a good person, but usually do not address directly the issue of living more ecologically. Christians now teach that God expects us to be good stewards of the earth’s resources. Does it seem reasonable that persons who respect and appreciate nature will live more frugally? Will emphasizing the beauty of nature and the wonder of life persuade us to have greater respect for nature?
Chapter 6 explores why caring relationships are crucial for ethics. Native American and traditional Buddhist cultures value relationships with animals in ways that challenge our thinking. Advocates of “deep ecology” assert that Eastern spirituality is more ecological than Western religious thought and claim that all organisms have equal rights. Ecofeminists argue that the domination of nature and women in Eastern and Western cultures must be addressed together, if we are to embrace a more caring approach to ethics that will not only protect the equal rights of women and men, but also transform our relationship with nature.
Chapter 7 concerns protecting rights. Deontological ethics justifies recognizing the rights of persons. International human rights law affirms civil and political rights, as well as economic, social, and cultural rights. International covenants and the laws of many nations assert the right of peoples to sustainable development and the right of persons to a healthy environment, but the United States has not recognized these rights. Western jurisprudence requires humane treatment for animals in our care and has begun to protect endangered species. As we extend moral consideration to some animals, should we also affirm animal rights? Should we recognize the collective right of environmental refugees to repayment by industrial societies that have become wealthy by depleting natural resources, dumping wastes, and destroying biodiversity?
Chapter 8 considers predictingconsequences. Instead of affirming intrinsic values, many argue that ethical action requires doing what we think will result in greater happiness. This means acting on our predictions about the future, even though our knowledge is limited. Cost-benefit analysis is an effective way to value the financial impacts of environmental decisions, but should not be used to assess damage to ecosystem integrity or the denial of human rights. Thus, a consequential approach to environmental ethics is necessary, but not sufficient. Also, science is necessary to predict consequences about environmental decisions, but not sufficient because it cannot replace ethical reasoning. Should the suffering of animals be considered in making consequential predictions? If this seems reasonable, at least in some circumstances, how are we to compare human and nonhuman suffering?
1 / Text from Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).