Everyone agrees that there are plenty of environmental problems in the world today.  Air quality has diminished in many areas (Nova Scotia had smog this past summer!).  The cod stocks have been badly damaged around Newfoundland (& elsewhere).  The existence of the Greenhouse Effect is now broadly (although not entirely) accepted.  Again, we all presumably agree that where there are environmental problems, they require solutions.

Our Question:  What place does ethics have in thinking about how we treat the environment?

Pretty clearly, we can consider what obligations we have towards our fellow human beings.  It seems to make sense to ask whether I (or my company) have harmed those around me through my 'environmental conduct'.

E.g., Have I dumped hazardous chemicals?
Am I using a resource wastefully, so that there won't be enough left for others?

Notice that, although most naturally thought of in terms of the actions of corporations or governments, these questions can also be asked about our actions as individuals.

So far, it seems pretty clear that ethical issues arise in thinking about the environment.  There's a case to be made that certain ways of using the environment are morally wrong because to act in those ways is to fail to live up to our obligations toward other people.

Many people, however, suggest this is too limited a view of the relationship between ethics and the environment.

In other words, the reason we've considered is based on the idea that people matter morally (& so that we have obligations to other people).

Most of us would agree that this is a reason worth taking seriously, but, as we saw last week, some philosophers want to say that we shouldn't stop at this reason.

Four Types of Theory about What Matters Morally:

1. An Anthropocentric Ethics: all (and only) humans are worthy of moral consideration

2. An 'Animalcentric' Ethics: all (and only) animals are worthy of moral consideration

3. A Biocentric Ethic: all (and only) living things are worthy of moral consideration

Deep Ecology

4. An Ecocentric Ethic:  all natural things and systems are worthy of moral consideration

The Land Ethic

Note: in practice, views #3 and #4 tend to run together.

****************************************

The Land Ethic

Aldo Leopold (1887-1948) - A Sand County Almanac (1949)

The biotic pyramid - "The bottom layer is the soil.  A plant layer rests on the soil, an insect layer on the plants, a bird and rodent layer on the insects and so on up through various animals groups to the apex layer, which consists of the larger carnivores."

Land - "Land ... is not merely soil; it is a fountain of energy flowing through a circuit of soils, plants, and animals.  Food chains are the living channels which conduct energy upward; death and decay return it to the soil."

Land, in other words, is an ecosystem.

The Land Ethic suggests that we should think of ecosystems (i.e., land) as having moral value.

A Sentiment-Based View of Ethics

Q:  Why do we have the concept of right and wrong?

A:  Because they are evolutionarily successful concepts.

Why believe that?

The survival and success of human beings, as a species, depends on our ability to cooperate.  Hence, evolution has 'designed' us to care for one another.  In effect, evolution designs us with the sentiments on which the concepts of right and wrong are based.

Ethics is thus based on sentiment - i.e., our tendency to care for others.

But we don't care for all others equally.

The sort of sentiment evolution 'programs' us for is directed towards those in our community.

This, unlike consequentialism & deontology, is a partial theory of ethics.

What does this have to do with the environment?

We care for those we see as being in our community.

But, the idea of who is in our community is not fixed.

Over time, we have come to see the community we live in as being much broader than those immediately around us.  For example, there's much talk today about the international community.

The idea behind the land ethic is that knowledge of ecology will enlarge our sense of community even further.

How will that work?

Our sentiment for those around us emerged because of our mutual dependence on others.

Knowledge of ecology will show us our mutual dependence on the other members of the ecosystems we inhabit.

Hence, we should widen our sentiment to include those things.

The Land Ethic - "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.  It is wrong when it tends otherwise."

Does this mean you must care as much for a cougar as you do for you family/friends?

No, Leopold saw the Land Ethic as adding to moral obligations we already saw ourselves as having, not canceling or replacing them.

Think of the Land Ethic as involving concentric circles.

In the centre is you, your family & friends.  Next is, perhaps, your colleagues, fellow students, townspeople, after that, perhaps your fellow Canadians and so on.  Eventually, we come to a circle involving the non-human world.

Does that mean our obligations to the natural world are very weak?

No.  Consider that you sometimes are obliged to do things for your country instead of doing them for your friends/family.  You have to pay taxes, even if you'd rather spend the money on yourself or your boyfriend/girlfriend.  Likewise, sometimes your obligations to the natural world will take precedence over things you'd like to do.

E.g., driving an S.U.V.

A harder case: what if it comes down to human life vs. animal life?

Conceivably, the Land Ethic may tell us that animal life wins out.

E.g., Zimbabwe's 'shoot to kill' policy for those poaching black rhinos.

****************************************

The Tragedy of the Commons & the North Atlantic Cod Fishery

In a very famous article called "The Tragedy of the Commons", Garrett Hardin presented an argument that many people think has profound implications for environmental philosophy.  It has also been claimed that his argument can be used to explain the collapse of the North Atlantic Cod Fishery.

Hardin sets out to consider problems like resource depletion & overpopulation.

He argues that the root of these problems is to be found in the idea of a commons.

A commons is a resource open to all:

"Picture a pasture open to all."

When the situation we live in is not socially stable, the commons may work okay.  Tribal wars, disease, etc. will keep the number of shepherds down.  But, when things are socially stable, trouble begins.

"As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain."  He will ask himself, 'What will I gain by adding one more animal to my herd?'

The answer is that he will gain the benefit of having one more animal (for wool or for slaughter).  This comes at a cost as well.  The extra sheep will 'use up' a little more of the pasture (i.e., it needs to graze on some of the pasture, so there's that much left for all the other sheep).  However, that's not a cost our shepherd has to bear on his own.  That costs gets split over all the other shepherds who use the pasture.  How much difference can one sheep make?

But, of course, all the other shepherds, since they're "rational beings" will think the same way.

"The rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another ....  But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons.  Therein in the tragedy.  Each man is locked in a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit ... Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all."

The Prisoner's Dilemma

Suppose two prisoners are brought in for questioning. Both are suspected of being involved in the same crime (and, in fact, both were involved in the crime). The police officers doing the questioning put the two men (call them 'Bill' and 'Al') in separate rooms and attempt to get one or both to confess to the crime. They do this by presenting the possible ways things might turn out.

Neither confesses - no punishment for either one

One confesses but not the other - $100,000 and no jail time to the person who confesses, 15 years to the other person

Both confess - 3 years each

Suppose that you're Bill and you're looking out just for yourself.

Suppose you also know that Al is also looking out only for himself. What should you do?

Think of it this way.  You have two options:

1. You don't confess.  In this case, the best that happens is that you get to go home and the worst that happens is that you get 15 years.

2. You do confess.  In this case, the best that happens is that you get to go home $100,000 richer and the worst that happens is that you get three years.

So it looks like you ought to confess.  What's the problem with that?

Since Al is also looking out for himself, you'll get 3 years each.  That's far from the best possible outcome for you.  In fact, it's the third best out of four.

As with the Tragedy of the Commons, being rational doesn't give you a good outcome here.

The problem is created by the fact that the pasture is a commons.

Likewise, overpopulation results from freedom to breed.
The collapse of the cod stocks resulted because the DFO treated the stock largely as a commons.
Air pollution happens because the air is treated more or less as a commons.

The solution is to stop treating the pasture as a commons.  Privatize it.

Instead of 10 herdsmen on one common piece of land.  Give each exclusive right to one tenth of the pasture.

What good does privatizing it do?

Hardin claims the difference here is that now all costs resulting from expanding your stock have to be dealt with by you alone.  Now, a rational man won't expand his flock indefinitely.

Hardin draws a number of practical morals from this.

In order to solve pollution problems, the solution isn't always more regulation, sometimes it's privatization.

"Freedom to breed is intolerable."

We should cut down on overseas aid.

If it does, is Hardin's solution the right one?

[Philosophy 2800]