This Essay begins by analyzing the argument for an holistic environmental ethic. It proceeds to analyze the counter-argument for an anthropocentric environmental ethic, and then it relays my thoughts on environmental holism. Enjoy :)
Leopold’s Land Ethic: An Argument for Holism
Aldo Leopold’s land ethic is holistic on the basis that all living things, species, and ecosystems are valued as having moral worth. This includes the moral worth of rocks, waterways, and other features of the environment in its entirety. Furthermore, Leopold argues that the environment is a community of which all human beings are plain members. “In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it” (Pojman, Pojman, & McShane, 2017, p. 239). Leopold holds that because all components of the environment make up the whole of this community, it is best that all sentient-living, non-sentient-living, and nonliving constituents thrive. The land ethic also requires that some of the environment exist in a “natural state” (Pojman, Pojman, & McShane, 2017, p. 239), meaning unaltered by human activity.
Leopold maintains that an adequate environmental ethic must be holistic because unlike humanity’s current ethical approach to the environment—which serves economic self-interest—a holistic approach, such as the land ethic, respects the interdependence of all members of the environmental community. This is portrayed in Leopold’s discussion of the land pyramid. In this system: plants rely on healthy soil to grow, insects and small animals rely on healthy plants to eat, larger animals rely on healthy smaller animals to eat, and so forth. Healthy biotic affiliates of the environment are not merely necessary for the land pyramid to be efficacious—thriving, heterogenous landscapes are also essential so that the land may contain the requisite nutrients for life. Leopold expresses: “Its functioning depends on the co-operation and competition of its diverse parts” (Pojman, Pojman, & McShane, 2017, p. 243).
Anthropocentrism: An Argument Against Holism
One argument against holism in environmental ethics is the argument for anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrists hold that human beings are at the center of moral valuation because they are rational creatures with the capability, and often the need to manipulate their surroundings in order to survive. Anthropocentrism follows the core principle of traditional western ethics: that all actions are permissible as long as they do not cause harm to other human beings. Richard Routley discusses three perspectives of an anthropocentric-environmental ethic.
The first view is that “...nature is the dominion of man and he is free to deal with it as he pleases” (Routley, 1973, p. 2). According to this view humans may cause any damage to the environment and there is no responsibility to avoid, or mend it. The second view that Routley mentions is the role of man as a steward of nature. Routley equates this role to man being nature’s custodian (Routley, 1973, p. 2). The final interpretation of humanity’s role in the environment is the co-operative position, in which humanity brings about its subjectively-ideal existence of nature. The difference between the latter two perspectives is that:
“According to the co-operative position man’s proper role is to develop, cultivate and
protect nature—all nature eventually—by bringing out its potentialities, the test of
perfection being primarily usefulness for human purposes; while on the stewardship role,
like that of a farm manager, is to make nature productive by his efforts though not by
means that will deliberately degrade its resources” (Routley, 1973, p. 2)
It is important to note that Routley details the views of anthropocentrism, but he does not support or defend them. Routley expresses that anthropocentrism is the modern approach to environmental ethics, and that it is time for humans to adopt a new environmental ethic. The de facto distinction between holism and anthropocentrism is that the former respects the inherent moral worth of all aspects of the environment, while anthropocentrism respects the inherent moral worth of human beings and their interests. Anthropocentrists are opposed to holists because by adhering to holism in environmental ethics humans will not be able to desirably use the environment as a means to their ends.
My View on Holism in Environmental Ethics
I believe that a holistic approach to environmental ethics, such as Leopold’s land ethic is ideal in an abstract way of contemplating how humans ought to interact with nature. However, I argue that this cannot become a concrete reality. I propose two time settings to give an explanation. The first time setting is when humans populated the Earth, before causing the existential threat of climate change. The second setting is after the threat of climate change became imminent.
When humans populated the Earth before becoming the most probable cause for their own demise, they were still significantly impacting the environment. Although this was not merely for luxury, but for survival. Five hundred years ago, the indigenous people of North America, being relatively eco-friendly at the time, were cutting down numerous trees in order to provide shelter for themselves. They were also hunting diverse species and using their skin for clothing and bones for tools. Surely these are anthropocentric actions. Routley would view this as man being the dominator of nature. Native Americans, however, had great respect for the land, and did view themselves as members of the environmental community. They did not, however, allow their reverence for nature to make them become extinct. Furthermore, Native Americans were skilled in agriculture, growing food for themselves while being resourceful. Here, Native Americans were stewards of nature. Similar examples of human relationships with nature are seen in the Amazonian tribes, which build homes and eat fish, whilst claiming they can communicate with and protect native plants.
In the second scenario, in which the threat of climate change is imminent, humans are left with no choice but to deliberately impact the environment, being that they value persistence as a species. This is also an example of man being a dominator of nature. In order to reach this dire state of being, humans abused nature as its administrator. Upon realizing the ruination they have caused, they must further impact the environment due to their selfish inherent desire to exist.
I discuss both of these scenarios because they are real. Moreover, they are natural. Survival is an inherent good of all living things, subjectively. Therefore, it was a natural turn of events for humans to use tools once they discovered that they could. It was also a natural development to seek luxury because it was beneficial for individual endurance. Although the greed of some people is a driving factor for resistance to addressing climate change, most people desire to reverse its effects after learning about the imminent threat that it poses to survival. A less dramatic, but similar trend is seen in other animals. Woodpeckers will happily murder a tree to get a meal. Beavers do not hesitate to kill trees and disturb waterways to build a damn. There are plenty of other examples. Therefore, it is impossible for humans to thrive—especially in today’s society when climate change is an imminent threat—as plain members of the environmental community, due to their inherent moral valuation of existence. Thus, it is also impossible to leave any significant portion of the environment in a natural state.
I do believe, however, that humans ought to acknowledge and respect the inherent value of the environment as a whole, whilst attributing greater moral worth to sentient beings. I also believe that Leopold made a good point in discussing the necessity of the land pyramid in the environmental community. Humans will be driven to reverse climate change and continue to have homes and food. However, measures can and ought to be taken to cause as little adverse effects to the environmental community (including its sentient, non-sentient, and non-living members) as much as possible. This includes by means of: producing clean, renewable energy; wearing cotton instead of fur, wool, and other animal resources; and eating plants for reasons, 1—to mitigate suffering, and 2—because they are a healthier source of nutrients. Innovation capacity is now expansive enough that humans can develop a system of surviving comfortably, while being eco-friendly.
References
Aldo Leopold, “The Land Ethic” from A Sand County Almanac (Oxford University Press: 1949), pp. 201-26
Richard Routley, “Is There a Need for a New, an Environmental, Ethic?”, Proceedings of the XV World Congress
of Philosophy, No. 1 (1973), pp. 205-10