N.Dower Earth Charter as Global Ethics (2004) p. 18
The Earth Charter as a Global Ethic
Nigel Dower
University of Aberdeen
1. Introduction
The following paper is written in the belief that IUCN, as a leading world environmental organization, will do well to endorse the Earth Charter. In the first half I argue that (a) ethics – as having an ethic and thinking about ethical issues – is important to environmental protection; (b) the appropriate form of ethics is global; (c) the Earth Charter represents a balanced and effective expression of a global ethic. In second half I address a number of objections or reservations which many people, including those within IUCN, may have about the Earth Charter in particular and ethics more generally.
2. The need for an appropriate ethic
(a) Why is ethics important?
Successful environmental policies require many things – not least sound scientific understanding and clear and practicable environmental laws – which nation-states and their international organizations are willing both to pass and to implement. None of this however will either happen or if it happens be effective, unless ordinary people support it – that is, support government moves to enact legislation and to pursue environmental policies, and to play their part in making laws and policies work. For this ethics is essential – that is an ethical commitment to environmental values.
From an expert's point of view – for instance a scientist or environmental lawyer working within IUCN – the ethical basis may seem so self-evident that it is hardly worth focusing on. Anyone drawn to work for IUCN is likely to be motivated by a serious concern for nature conservation, the preservation of species etc., and although it may well turn out that that ethical basis is not the same for each (some may in fact have enlightened human-centred concerns, others biocentric or ecocentric concerns), the ethical commitment to certain general goals will be shared, and active disagreement will be on technical questions about means and effective ways.
But it is precisely the acceptance of this self-evidency of environmental ethical values and the moral passion to realise them that are lacking in very large sections of human populations. Since effective policies require that the vast majority of human beings are 'on board' so to speak, the question is: what kind of ethic will get them on board?
(b) What kind of ethic do we need?
The answer can be given in regard to four dimensions of an ethic: (i) its content, (ii) its scope, (iii) its style, and (iv) its social actualization. In short, an ethic needs:
(i) to have a certain content in being both about essential human goods alongside concern for the environment and being sufficiently robust in its account of duties as to provide a basis for making progress towards a future which is substantially better for humans in general than is the case at the moment;
(ii) to be global in scope – that is, to be a common universal ethic which includes a commitment to global responsibility;
(iii) to be truly motivational by being both emotionally and intellectually engaging;
(iv) to be widely shared, seen as the product of inter-cultural agreement and consultation, and embodied in public symboles and statements of various kinds.
To anticipate: the Earth Charter fits the bill in all these respects.
(i) Content
The ethic that is needed is one which combines concerns for human well-being with concerns for the environment. The former relates to the moral ground rules for social co-existence – not harming one another, not deceiving, coercing, stealing etc. – with principles of distributive justice which enable everyone to have access to sufficient resources to realise their basic rights. The latter refers to protecting the environment so that human well-being can be achieved for all not merely now but in the future – hence the emphasis on sustainability. It also refers for many thinking to additional biocentric concerns that we should preserve the environment because of the independent value of other life forms, ecosystems etc.
What is crucial to a successful environmental ethic is that it involves a commitment to serious environmental protection but at the same time is integrated into concern for human well-being, social justice and so on. The importance of this, apart from being intellectually sound, is that without this combination most people are simply not going to take environmental protection seriously.
Such an ethic needs to be sufficiently robust and rich in content so as to challenge people to act in new ways (since clearly current practices are both socially unjust and environmentally damaging), but at the same time not too specific in content so as to be inaccessible to a wide range of people with certain philosophical, religious or cultural beliefs inconsistent with it. There are really two issues here.
First, we need an ethic which is on the one hand not so idealistic or demanding as to leave people unmoved, but at the same time is not so bland and unchallenging that it requires of people little more than what they do anyway. So an ethic needs both to contain realizable requirements here and now, and, combined with these, ideals towards which we can strive.
Second, however rich the content, it needs to be such as not to reflect the presuppositions of any one religious, philosophical or cultural perspective. This is one of the challenges of universalism (to which I return in the latter part of the paper), but suffice it to say here that what we need is a mid-range universalism that falls between something so minimalist as to make no difference or something so maximalist not to be reasonably acceptable to people of many different belief backgrounds (for a middle way see e.g. Dower 1998).
(ii) Scope of an ethic as global
There are various different reasons why the ethic that we need, with the above content, needs to be interpreted as a global ethic – that is an ethic which is about universal values and norms and which includes a principle of global responsibility – namely that people and countries have a responsibility (where they are in a position to take effective action) for what happens elsewhere in the world – such as extreme poverty, violation of human rights, wars etc.
First, insofar as ethics arises in the context of finding co-operative solutions to common problems, many of our problems in the world are global problems requiring global solutions. Second, as reflected in the cosmopolitan tradition going back to the Stoics, the idea of a universal morality is intellectually compelling anyway since, given our common human nature, restricting ethical concern to only some fellow human beings seems arbitrary (see e.g. Heater 2002 and Dower 2003). Third, the process of globalization has produced such a high degree of interconnectedness, interaction, and development of global communities of common discourse, that the emergence of glottal ethical thinking is an inevitable concomitant to such developments. This does not mean there is just one common ethic of course – quite the contrary – but there is now a common field in which rival global discourses interact with one another, and thus make natural the attempts either to identify or to create global ethical consensuses (not as universally held but as held by many actors across the world) – consider the Declaration toward a Global Ethic of the Parliament of the Worlds’ Religions in 1993 (Küng & Kuschel 1993) as an attempt to highlight a pre-existing common core of values in the world’s major religions or the construction of a global civic ethic by the Commission on Global Governance in 1995 as an ethic appropriate to our times (Commission on Global Governance 1995). The Earth Charter is of course another such attempt to produce an ethic acceptable to a wide range of agents throughout the world.
(iii) The style of an ethic
An ethic, if it is to be fully motivational needs to be one which is both emotionally and intellectually engaging. This is particularly true of an ethic which is going to motivate people to act in new ways, often against conventional assumptions, including the determination not just to do what is right but also to promote what is right (through NGOs, political parties and so on). For an ethic to inspire an agent it needs to be more than a dry formulation of words; its general character and the kind of language used to express it need to engage the heart, and to have a visionary quality to it. It’s not merely that an ethic needs to contain ideals (see (a) above) but that a person sees himself as identified with his moral life, as part of a moral community and as seeking to create a better country or better world. There are many ways in which this emotional engagement with morality comes about, but certainly the kind of language used plays a significant part in it. Often religious affirmations and creeds have this character, though this is not meant to imply that those with secular commitments cannot have a similar visionary quality to them (such as a commitment to humanity). Certainly for many the Earth Charter has this emotionally engaging quality to it (and some have compared its language to that of poetry).
On the other hand, an ethic need also to be intellectually engaging in the sense that the moral agent takes seriously the bushiness of moral discernment, of working out what to do, what principles to accept and so on. An ethic rarely exists as a set of values and norms in the complete absence of ethical thought and reflection – what may be seen as the activity of 'ethics' as opposed to an 'ethic'. It is a mistake to think of ethics as neatly contrasted to having an ethic, as something done by professional philosophers and other academics but not generally by ordinary moral agents. Arguably an ethic as a set of values and norms which are acted on is the more satisfactory the more it is grounded in ongoing reflection. In speaking of a global ethic one is really speaking about global ethics as the combination of belief, thoughtful application and background reflection. The kind of global ethic I am advocating is really global ethics in this sense, and arguably the Earth Charter fits the bill here too, though on the face of it it looks like a very rich set of principles which are simply there for the taking. However as I will explain more fully later on, its real value lies in being a critical tool for engaged ethical reflection and decision.
In saying that an ethic should be both emotionally and intellectually challenging, I mean 'should' not 'is'. All too often a person's ethic may be one or the other or neither – intellectually rich but emotionally unengaging, emotionally charged but not properly thought through, or just rather superficial all round (as is the case for much conventional following of the social rules and little more). So it is real challenge to create the conditions in which a person’s ethics has the right engagement – and of course the right content too. (It could be engaged but have the wrong content after all.) Part of this challenge relates to the next point.
(iv) Social actualization of an ethic
As was indicated earlier in connection with the role of public declarations, a global ethic (assuming that this is the form an appropriate ethic should take) may also have certain characteristics which make it acceptable or more acceptable. This may have to do with its provenance, or how it has come to be accepted. In this regard, especially for something like a global ethic it is significant that it is the product of a widescale process of consultation throughout the world. It is not just the brainchild of a few thinkers. It may also have to do with the fact that an ethic is a publicly shared set of values and norms – this may or may not mean that it is precisely stated in some set of words like a declaration or charter, but the fact that something is embedded in the form of a public statement which can be endorsed or accepted gives it a certain social reality and thus, if it is signed up to by many thinkers throughout the world, a certain claim to being a global ethic in this sense. Being something of this kind which can be signed up to certainly adds to its motivational power and contributes to a certain moral culture.
For some thinkers an ethics being publicly shared and being the product of consultation and consensus building is what makes it a genuine global ethic at all. For others what makes an ethic a global ethic is its being a set of values and norms which the person’s moral thinking has led him to endorse – its being publicly shared or widely endorsed is a bonus or an extra, something which makes it more likely to be widely accepted. I will return to this in looking at possible criticisms, but for the time being merely wish to note that there are all these respects in which someone could think of an ethic as being global. And certainly if we turn to the Earth Charter we can see that it is a global ethic – and indeed the right kind of global ethic – in all the above respects.
3. The Earth Charter
(a) Background
The agreed text of the earth Charter was agreed in March 2000. It was produced by the Earth Council, an international NGO based in Costa Rica. Though four individuals played an editorial role in the drafting process, the text was developed, vetted and modified by a much larger group of representatives from different parts of the world. Indeed the Charter was the product of extensive consultations all over the world over a number of years. The Brundtland Commission Report Our Common Future had suggested a Charter for Nature, and although things did not come to fruition in that form, later after the Rio summit in 1992 the idea was taken up again. It now exists as a people's charter – something which individuals can endorse, and institutions likewise can endorse and adopt for their work. Educational institutions particularly are seeing it as something to be used for educating children to have the right values for living in the 21st century. It is hoped that it may eventually be endorsed in the United Nations by governments, although its format is not such as to be a basis for any hard law instruments. In this connection there is a parallel process going on in which the IUCN is playing a significant role in advancing a Covenant in the same area which would provide the basis for effective international law. But the two processes are linked, since the more ordinary people, NGOs, educational institutions, local governments and so on endorse the spirit of the Earth Charter, the greater normative pressure will built up on governments to accept something like a Covenant on Environment and Development.