Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 4: Notes-1
The Question of Value in Environmental Ethics 1. INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC VALUE The most fundamental philosophical task in environmental ethics today is to argue that nature is intrinsically valuable. But what is intrinsic value vis-a-vis its opposite? The distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value is employed in ethical philosophy in other (non-environmental) contexts as well. Extrinsic or instrumental values are means to further ends; they are not ends in themselves. If the end of an instrumental value leads to a further end, that end itself turns out to be an instrumental value oriented towards another value. The chain can be very long. An example will make the concept clear. Paper money or currency, though greatly valuable, is not intrinsically valuable since it has no worth on its own. Currency without its attached value to buy something with is a useless piece of paper. So, a bank note may be instrumental to purchase a football. Now, the football is possibly not valuable in itself; it is valued for the game it can be played with. For some their favourite game may be valuable in itself, for the fulfilment and enjoyment it gives, but for others a game may not be valuable in itself, but is valuable for something bigger, say, health. Now, healthy life for some may not be valuable in itself but for the happiness and general wellbeing it brings. And so on... goes the chain of instrumental values leading to something more intrinsic, something that is valuable in itself. Hence, an intrinsic value is not dependent on another end for its value; it is selfsufficient, self-reliant. It is justified on its own regardless of whether it is also useful as means to other ends. A wild plant may have instrumental value because it provides the ingredients for some medicine or as an aesthetic object for human observers. But if the plant also has some value in itself independently of its prospects for furthering some other ends such as human health, or the pleasure from aesthetic experience, then the plant also has intrinsic value. Because the intrinsically valuable is that which is good as an end in itself, it is commonly agreed that something’s possession of intrinsic value generates a prima facie direct moral duty on the part of moral agents (human beings) to protect it or at least refrain from damaging it. Hence, in environmental ethics, the notion of intrinsic value is of utmost importance. 2. THE ENLIGHTENMENT VIEW: ONLY HUMANS HAVE INTRINSIC VALUE Enlightenment is the historical stage of Europe’s passage from the blind faith and unreason of the middle ages (dark ages) to the age of reason, light, questioning and science. According to the late Enlightenment philosopher, Immanuel Kant (we have mentioned it before), ‘Enlightenment’ means independence of thought, ability to think and decide on one’s own without dependence on authorities like religion and the state. Now, Kant argued that only human beings have intrinsic value and only they should be within the parameters of morality. That is, the question of moral behaviour arises only
Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 4: Notes-2 among human relations, and not in our relations with the world and nature. Humans have intrinsic value on account of their rationality and the moral imperatives (laws) are reducible from their rationality. This Enlightenment principle has brought about great blessings for humanism and for human beings, but, at the same time, brought havoc for the environment. (We have emphasized this point over and again.) 3. INTRINSIC VALUE OF NATURE So, environmental philosophy is preoccupied with vesting intrinsic value upon nature so that nature can also be brought under the purview of morality. If nature has intrinsic value it would be the moral obligation of humans to protect and safeguard nature. That is, moral status can be attributed to things of nature only if they are intrinsically valuable. This requirement arose in the late 1960s with the ardent denunciation of anthropocentrism which was diagnosed as the cause of the environmental crisis. Hence, defending the intrinsic value of nature simply seems to be the project environmental philosophy today. Now, the question is whether biocentrism or ecocentrism, which argues for the intrinsic worth of nature, is philosophically justifiable. What are the arguments and views in support of this claim? Let me brief you on the two broad ways in which this case can be argued. The first way is to argue that nature and all non-human species have values in themselves. According to this argument ‘value’ is a property or characteristic of the thing that is valuable. We only need to “find” it. We have been blind to it so far; it is now time to ‘realize’ it. Hence the project of this group of thinkers is to give sound arguments for ‘finding’ or ‘realizing’ the intrinsic value of non-human reality. The second way is to argue that ‘value’ is not a property of a thing, but is the activity of a moral agent (only a human being is a moral agent since she/he is free and is rational). Nature may have intrinsic value, they argue, but without a conscious being becoming aware of it and articulating (speaking about, and relating towards it as valuable) its value, value is meaningless. We shall now see these two approaches. Point numbers 4, 5 and 6 below concern the first approach; and point number 7 concerns the second. 4. VOYAGE OF EVOLUTION One way of arguing that all beings of nature, including humans, are equal was to invoke the theory of evolution. Accordingly, human beings are fellow-travellers with other beings in the great voyage of evolution. If humans are members of the biosphere community who evolved along with other members, then there is no point in walling off the moral community among humans alone. This is considered morally arbitrary. The moral community should be extended to all members of the biosphere. This is like conferring voting rights to previously disenfranchised citizens. By this conferring of intrinsic value on nature, environmental ethics becomes independent of human ethics. When we encourage environmental preservation for the sake of human communities our consideration here is simply a consideration of human ethics because the aim is the betterment of human community, and not the environment for its own sake. On the contrary,
Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 4: Notes-3 if we encourage conservation for the sake of the trees and the animals, in accordance with their intrinsic worth, then we have an autonomous environmental ethics because we are considering nature as autonomous from human beings and intrinsically valuable. Hence the supporters of the ‘voyage of evolution’ idea say: “we are all co-travellers in the great voyage of evolution and we are all equally valuable”. 5. TELEOLOGICAL CENTER OF LIFE Another way of arguing for the intrinsic value of all beings, whether animal, vegetable or unicellular ones, is to consider that they are all teleological centers of life. ‘Telos’ in Greek means ‘goal’; ‘teleological’ means oriented towards fulfilling an aim, goal or purpose. All beings want to realize their life as goal in itself without reference to anything else. Each one is oriented towards fulfilling its own destiny. Of course they have shared subgoals which help in the service of their telos. In fulfilling their own purposes beings work within a network of give-and-take. These are the subgoals, which, while helping other beings to fulfil their purposes help themselves as well to fulfil their intrinsic purposes. So, in nature we can find a multitude of self-valuing and goal-seeking individual entities independently of any human valuation. This affirmation of inherent worth in the nonhuman world is enough to generate moral obligations not to harm them which do not depend on human beings. The most important of these obligations is not to interfere with the development and flourishing of these forms of life. 6. INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE ECOSYSTEM Against the above two arguments (point numbers 4 & 5), some thinkers raise an objection. If intrinsic value is conferred only on living beings on account of their evolving together as cotravellers in the voyage of evolution or on account of their orientation towards fulfilling their own teleology, what about abiotic entities – are they not intrinsically valuable? Hence, there is doubt cast on the capacity of a biocentric ethic because such an ethic may not be able to protect species and entire ecosystems which include abiotic entities. In the evolutionary play, the developmental trajectory of an organism ends when the fully developed specimen of its species is produced. What it reproduces are more specimens of that species. Are they, then, not valuable after these living species meet their telos in terms of their evolution? – they ask. Hence, they advocate the intrinsic value of the whole ecosystem. Ecosystems are fields for the evolutionary play of life, and if individual members of this field have intrinsic value, the system itself should have intrinsic value. The evolutionary creativity of these systems calls for our admiration. It is a wonder how the ecosystems are organized, selfregulated, and functionally integrated. So, when we look at nature from this angle, thinking of nature as possessing no value independently of human consciousness appears parochial and narrow. Many beings have long had their own genetically embedded agendas that they strive to realize even before the human species evolved.
Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 4: Notes-4 7. VALUE AS ANTHROPOGENIC Now we come to the second way of argument for the intrinsic value of nature. The above three arguments are arguments that consider value as a property of the thing valued. This argument is different from that perspective. According to this view, value does not rest on nature but on the human mind. The supporters of this view argue that to speak of value independent of the human mind is meaningless since in such a case there is no one to value the thing of value. Without someone, a conscious being, to value a thing, that thing’s value is unknown – and to speak of it is meaningless. We said that modern western philosophy and science is based on the idea that all value, and thought is based on the rationality of the human mind. Without the human mind, though the law of gravitational force is always operative, it can never be known and articulated. Similarly, these environmentalists argue that without the human mind there is no question of value. So, they attempt to construct an environmental ethic that is all-inclusive (promotes the intrinsic value of nature) but aims to be a subjectivist theory of value. (‘Subjectivist’ means value depends on a conscious subject). This theory distinguishes between the site that has value (nature) and the source of all values (consciousness). Though what is valuable is nature, that which comes to understand the value of nature is human consciousness. So, value is not anthropocentric but it is anthropogenic. According to this group of thinkers, valuation is the result of human conscience (anthropogenic), but intrinsic value is not reserved for only human beings but for all beings (not anthropocentric). For them, the word ‘value’ is primarily an action word and a verb, and not a noun. If your notice, the first group of theorists consider ‘value’ as a noun and a property of the thing valued. For the second group, something has value only if it is valued by a conscious being capable of intentionality (the process by which a consciousness directs itself to its objects; a consciousness is always consciousness of something; consciousness always has its object). 8. ATTRIBUTING INTRINSIC VALUE TO NATURE There are two basic ways in which intentionally conscious beings value, intrinsically and instrumentally. So, for them, what is important is to make human consciousness capable to value nature as intrinsically valuable. And they think this is possible by means of a cultural and social paradigm shift. Those who stand by anthropogenic value argue that even those who argue for intrinsic value of all beings without human consciousness argue that plants, for example, consider their lives intrinsically valuable and fight with other plants for sunlight (that is, to live). Though in a rudimentary way, they seem to be conscious of the intrinsic value of their life. Hence, according to the anthropogenic group, the first argument is also a subjectivist theory of value – but the subject in this case is not the human being. Since the subjectivity of non-
Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 4: Notes-5 human species is an absurd proposition, they argue, it is human consciousness that values or disvalues something. Those who support the anthropogenic view consider human beings as able to ascribe intrinsic value to themselves and other beings. This is achievable, they argue, since the Indians (and other Asians and Africans), for example, have done so since time immemorial on the basis of their religious perspectives. Hence with good reasons, humans can attribute intrinsic value to nature. So, an important aspect of environmental ethics today, according to the anthropogenic group, is to articulate good reasons to ascribe intrinsic value to nature. This is done by almost all the environmental movements and agencies. 9. NATURAL RIGHT OF NATURE Now, according to Enlightenment thinking, what has intrinsic value has certain natural rights. What is a natural right? A right is a claim we make on others in terms of what they owe to us. For example, one has a right to life, and others have an obligation not to kill or harm him/her. A natural right is a right that follows from the very nature or essence of a being. Since by nature every human being is an end in itself, Kant argued, all of us have natural rights to be free and equal. Not even the state can infringe on this right. It cannot be denied to us even for the most hallowed of purposes. However, many natural rights were not guaranteed to several sections of humanity for long time. Women’s enfranchisement, equal rights of the blacks in America and South Africa, and laws against untouchability in India have been twentieth century events. Not that these unfortunate sections of humanity were earlier (before twentieth century) less human, and did not have natural rights. But their rights were recognized and conferred rightly on them on account of human neglect and vested interests. Similarly, the environmental philosophers argue that human consciousness today has reached that stage when we can no more think of the environment as a thing of instrumental value without natural rights. They, on the other hand, argue that nature is intrinsically valuable and has natural rights to protection and conservation. But, when sections of humanity, erstwhile denied their natural rights, were conferred rightly with these rights, this welcome step meant certain definite things like enfranchisement, equality before law, equality of opportunity etc. The question of environmental philosophy is regarding the definite steps that would make the natural right of the environment a meaningful idea. That is the big question.
Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 4: Notes-6
Extension of rights property holders of dominant race/ group
minority ethnic groups / caste groups
women
natural ecosystems
Appendix below.
Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 4: Notes-7 APPENDIX: Certain Other Terms in Environmental Ethics 1. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY: Also called intermediate or appropriate technology was a term popularized in the 1973 book Small is Beautiful of E. F. Schumacher, a German born English economist. It means meaningful work, local agriculture, human-scale manufacturing, and renewable energy. It means fitting technologies to people, ecosystems, and cultures, instead of forcing them to adjust to technology. 2. BIOCENTRISM: A life-centered outlook that rejects the view that humanity alone matters in ethics and accepts the moral standing of at least all living beings, and possibly including all that exists. It is the opposite of anthropocentrism in ethics. 3. EARTH CHARTER: The Earth Charter 2000 is a people’s declaration on global interdependence and universal responsibility that sets forth fundamental principles for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful world. 4. ECOCRITICISM: When scholars read old and current literary texts and criticise, appreciate or comment on their environmental values, it is called ecocriticism, short for short for ecological literary criticism. 5. ECONOMISM: This term refers to the view that problems of social policy, particularly environmental policy, can best be understood as economic problems, and that solutions to them are best justified in economic terms. More broadly, economism means reducing every social fact to economic dimensions and solving social problems through economic reasoning alone. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZENSIP: Environmental citizenship is the idea that each of us is an integral part of a larger ecosystem and that our future depends on each of us embracing the challenge and acting responsibly and positively toward our environment. This idea is about making changes in our daily lives to be environmental citizens all day, every day. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN: Environmental design, design for environment, ecodesign, green design, sustainable design, design for sustainability, cradle to cradle – all these terms refer to integration of environmental requirements in all stages of the product development process (whether it be a pen or a building), with the aim of reducing the environmental impact of all life cycle steps and maximizing sustainability. It is a growing trend in architecture, engineering, industrial design, graphic design, interior design, and fashion design. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS: The term postcolonial environmental ethics refers to the view that any globally relevant environmental ethic must recognize the legacy of EuroAmerican resource extraction from subordinate states over the last five centuries. The term ‘postcolonial’ draws attention to the fact that the contemporary period has followed the demise of Euro-American colonial empires that lasted from the late 1400s through the 1960s and that people in the West still are affected by neocolonial attitudes toward nature and the human categories (indigenous/women) that are conceptually connected with nature. 9. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: Environmental justice addresses a wide range of issues, combining the concerns of social justice and environmentalism. Those who are concerned about environmental justice view the environment not as a purely natural phenomenon
Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 4: Notes-8 but as a set of socially and politically conditioned relationships. They typically ask how justly are environmental benefits and burdens are distributed among people. If there is a big dam, those concerned about environmental justice will ask who benefits from the water and how it affects people who live on the bank of the dam’s river. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS: Whereas environmental ethics focuses mainly on values and obligations as they bear on individual choices and actions, environmental politics focuses on processes of collective decision making, including processes leading to basic decisions concerning the arrangement of institutions and matters of law and policy within those institutions in relation to environment. 11. ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM: It is racial discrimination in environmental policy making, and the unequal enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. For example, the deliberate targeting of socially disadvantaged people for dumping toxic waste is an act of environmental racism. Other global, national or local policies like official sanctioning of the life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in communities of socially disadvantaged people, and the history of conveniently excluding persons from socially disadvantaged sections from the leadership of the environmental movement are issues of environmental racism. 12. LAND ETHIC: It is the proposal of the American environmentalist Aldo Leopold in the late 1940s that an interaction with nature is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community and is wrong when it tends otherwise. 13. LAST MAN ARGUMENT: It was a thought experiment developed by the New Zealander environmental philosopher Richard Sylvan (also known as Richard Routley) in the 1970s to argue that the prevailing western ethics was not suitable for an environmental ethics. Since ethical norms should be suitable in principle to all situations, thought experiments are important in ethics. Routley claimed that according to western ethics, the last person
surviving the collapse of the world system would be committing no wrong if she/he set about destroying every species of animal and plant on the earth that she/he could. Because only humans have intrinsic value and no other human is left to be harmed by the actions of the last person, that person’s destructive actions would not run counter to conventional ethics. 14. PANTHEISM: Is the religious philosophy that nature itself is divine, or and what is in any sense divine is not something to be trifled with or exploited. Pantheism is the ideal religious philosophy for an environmental philosophy and ethics. Hinduism contains pantheistic ideas. 15. SPECIESISM: A term coined by the American environmentalist Richard Ryder to mean discrimination against or exploitation of certain animal species by human beings, based on the assumption of humankind’s superiority. For example, the widespread use of animals for biomedical experiments. 16. STEWARDSHIP: It refers to a way of thinking about environmental responsibility that is based on the metaphor of human beings as stewards of the Earth: persons who are responsible to an owner (God in Christianity) for the care or management of that person’s household and goods (the whole earth that God created). 17. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: Sustainable development is designed to meet present needs without compromising the needs and aspirations of future generations.