Saturday, July 5, 2008
Respect for nature
Do we have a duty not to litter because we have a duty to nature? The question here is whether a landscape has intrinsic value. Kant held that we have no duty to the natural world, as it lacks rationality. Gandhi affirmed that we have a duty to animals, because they participate in the moral rationality of karma, but this tells us nothing about the intrinsic value of nature.
Arguing that we have a duty to care for nature for its own sake means affirming that a landscape has intrinsic worth apart from anyone’s use and enjoyment of it―that fields, forests, and beaches have intrinsic value, which we should respect by accepting a duty not to litter there.
Chapter 2 of Doing Environmental Ethics argues that the intrinsic worth of nature rests on biological facts: that every organism is self-organizing and pursues its own good, and that ecosystems are self-organizing and life sustaining. Accepting this argument seems to justify a law against littering anywhere, which creates a duty to protect the environment simply because it has intrinsic value. Reasoning by analogy would allow us to extend this duty to other ways of respecting the environment, such as recycling, reducing pollution, and protecting biodiversity.
We have other duties, of course, and these may be in conflict with our duty to protect the environment. For example, our duty to care for ecosystems may clash with our duty to help others realize their economic rights through economic development. How are we to resolve such conflicts of duty? We might consider the kind of person that we think we should be, or we might predict the likely consequences of taking an action. If we are religious, we may turn to the religious teachings of our tradition for ethical guidance.
Arguing that we have a duty to care for nature for its own sake means affirming that a landscape has intrinsic worth apart from anyone’s use and enjoyment of it―that fields, forests, and beaches have intrinsic value, which we should respect by accepting a duty not to litter there.
Chapter 2 of Doing Environmental Ethics argues that the intrinsic worth of nature rests on biological facts: that every organism is self-organizing and pursues its own good, and that ecosystems are self-organizing and life sustaining. Accepting this argument seems to justify a law against littering anywhere, which creates a duty to protect the environment simply because it has intrinsic value. Reasoning by analogy would allow us to extend this duty to other ways of respecting the environment, such as recycling, reducing pollution, and protecting biodiversity.
We have other duties, of course, and these may be in conflict with our duty to protect the environment. For example, our duty to care for ecosystems may clash with our duty to help others realize their economic rights through economic development. How are we to resolve such conflicts of duty? We might consider the kind of person that we think we should be, or we might predict the likely consequences of taking an action. If we are religious, we may turn to the religious teachings of our tradition for ethical guidance.
Labels: dee.4.6
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
