Fall 08 Course Outline

Below is the course outline for PHIL 2380 in the fall term. The course is enhanced by WebCT, therefore announcements, info, and discussion will take place on our WebCT website.



PHIL 2380*
Introduction to Environmental Ethics


Academic term: Fall 2008
Class schedule: Wednesday evenings 6:05pm-8:55pm
Classroom: 3380 Mackenzie

Instructor: Michael Kocsis
Office: Room 329B, Floor 3A Paterson Hall
Email: mkocsis@connect.carleton.ca
Phone: 613-520-2600 (philosophy department office)
Office Hours: 4:30-5:30pm Wednesdays (also by appointment)
WebCT course website: http://lms.carleton.ca

Course Description

This course introduces students to the field of environmental ethics. We will discuss issues such as vegetarianism, animal rights, sustainability, stewardship, and eco-radicalism, mainly from the perspective of philosophy and ethics. We will explore philosophical ideas such as property rights, utilitarianism, Kantianism, virtue ethics, feminism and Marxism. Discussions about environmental issues can sometimes leave us feeling frustrated, but as we will see, the field of environmental ethics offers some useful ways of making progress.

Evaluation

The course involves; i) two in-class tests, and ii) a final examination to be held in the December exam period. Details will be given in class. Review questions will be posted prior to each test on the course webpage.

· 30% - In-class test #1 (Wed. Oct. 1st - usual classroom - 3380 Mackenzie)
· 30% - In-class test #2 (Wed. Oct. 29th - usual classroom - 3380 Mackenzie)

Check WebCT one week before test for Test Review Questions

· 40% - Final exam (Scheduled by Carleton during exam period)

Check WebCT one week before exams begin for Final Exam Review Questions



Textbooks and Resources

The course has one required textbook, which is a “course reading pack” available for purchase at Haven Books on Seneca St. You will benefit from reading the assigned material before lectures.

Log onto our WebCT webpage (login: http://lms.carleton.ca/) for the reading schedule, course announcements, course outline, and other educational tools you may benefit from.


Services for Students with Disabilities

Carleton is committed to ensuring that information and resources are as accessible as possible. Special services for students with disabilities are provided by the Paul Menton Centre. Students should contact the centre (500 University Centre, telephone: 520-6608; email: pmc@carleton.ca; web: http://www.carleton.ca/pmc ) in order to receive appropriate assistance and accommodations.


Statement on Plagiarism

All course work deemed to be in violation of Carleton’s policies on academic honesty will be handled according to the procedures and penalties set out in the 2007-2008 Academic Calendar (“Academic Regulations”, sec. 14.0). It is the responsibility of each student to understand the meaning of “plagiarism” as defined in the Calendar, and to avoid both committing plagiarism and/or aiding plagiarism by others.


Writing Tutorial Service

Those who feel apprehensive about their writing skills might consider contacting the Academic Writing Centre. They provide tutorials and regular workshops throughout the academic year. (For appointments: 229 Paterson Hall; tel: 520-6632; web: http://www.carleton.ca/wts )




PHIL 2380 - Reading Schedule

1. Wed. September 10 Introduction

· VIDEO: “The Promise of the Land”

2. Wed. September 17 The Debate about Vegetarianism

· George Orwell, “Shooting an Elephant”
· Michael Allen Fox, “Arguments for Vegetarianism”

3. Wed. September 24 Human-centred Ethics

· from the Book of Genesis
· St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica
· Lynn White Jr., “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis”

· VIDEO: “Net Loss: The Storm Over Salmon Fishing”

4. Wed. October 1 Property Rights

ü TEST #1 (first half)

· John Locke, “The Creation of Property”
· Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”
· George Monbiot, “The Tragedy of Enclosure”

5. Wed. October 8 Utilitarianism

· Peter Singer, “All Animals are Equal”
· Joseph Desjardins, “Ethical Theory and the Environment”

6. Wed. October 15 Kantian Ethics

· Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights”
· Kant, “Duties to Animals”


7. Wed. October 22 Bio-centrism & Virtue Ethics

· Paul Taylor, “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”
· Aristotle, from Physics, On the Soul and Politics

· VIDEO: “Learning from Ladakh”

8. Wed. October 29 Ecosystems & Ecocentrism

ü TEST #2 (first half)

· Aldo Leopold, “The Land Ethic: Conservation as a Moral Issue”
· Devall & Sessions, “Deep Ecology”

9. Wed. November 5 Political Ecology (Part 1)

· Wouter Achterberg, “Sustainability, Community and Democracy”
· Neil Carter, “Worker Co-operatives and Green Political Theory”

10. Wed. November 12 Political Ecology (Part 2)

· Karen J. Warren, “The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism”
· Murray Bookchin, “What is Social Ecology?”

11. Wed. November 19 Problems with Holism

· Dave Foreman, “Strategic Monkeywrenching”
· Callicott & Nelson “An Ojibwa Worldview and Environmental Ethic”

12. Wed. November 26 Conclusions

· Andrew Light, “Taking Environmentalism Public”
· Final exam review


Carleton exam period — December 4-20th

PHIL 2380 Fall Term 08

The Fall 08 edition of PHIL 2380 Environmental Ethics is enhanced by WebCT in the Carleton WebCT learning environment. Hence, the majority of PHIL 2380 lecture notes, study questions, and so forth will be available primarily to those logged into WebCT.

Here's the front door to Carleton WebCT:
http://webct6.carleton.ca/webct/entryPageIns.dowebct

WebCT updates

Just a reminder - our WebCT webpage now contains updated lecture notes, final exam review questions, and provisional grades for both tests and going into the final exam.

Here is a direct link to our WebCT facilities:https://lms.carleton.ca/webct/logon/236834103001

Final exam review

The PHIL 2380 final exam will take place on Saturday, August 16th @ 2pm in 208 Tory Building (2nd and 3rd levels).

The exam will have three sections:

PART A (multiple choice)

PART B (short answers)

PART C (essay questions)

Material covered on the exam is drawn from readings and lectures. The following readings ARE covered:

• Fox, “Arguments for Vegetarianism”
• Orwell, “Shooting an Elephant”
• St. Thomas Aquinas, from Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica
• Locke, “The Creation of Property”
• Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”
• Desjardins, “Ethical Theory and the Environment”
• Singer, “All Animals are Equal”
• Kant, “Duties to Animals”
• Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights”
• Taylor, “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”
• Leopold, “The Land Ethic: Conservation as a Moral Issue”
• Devall & Sessions, “Deep Ecology”
• Wouter Achterberg, “Sustainability, Community and Democracy”
• Neil Carter, “Worker Co-operatives and Green Political Theory”
• Warren, “The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism”
• Bookchin, “What is Social Ecology?”

Your guide to exam preparation is below. The first part of the guide contains concepts, definitions, etc. drawn from lectures and readings. The second includes short-answer-type questions about: i) general course themes; ii) ethical theories, and; iii) specific readings. The third section includes a series of sample essay questions. As with previous tests, you may benefit by using these questions as practice for putting forward clear arguments while using language carefully and concisely.

**Be aware that questions below are not organized in a particular order, and some questions on the final exam may not be mentioned in the review suggestions below.

Concepts & definitions:

Sentience

Subject-of-a-life

Human health argument

Animal suffering argument

Environmental damage argument

Social injustice argument

Eco-sabotage

Ecofeminism

Extensionism

Logic of domination

Patriarchy

Hierarchy

Social ecology

Political ecology

Anthropocentrism/anthropocentric perspective

Bio-centric perspective

Eco-centric perspective

Moral claims

Factual claims

John Locke

Locke’s proviso

The Tragedy of the Commons argument

Immanuel Kant

Kant's maxims

Jeremy Bentham

John Stuart Mill

Paul Taylor

Peter Singer

Tom Regan

Bentham's dictum

The utilitarian principle

The categorical imperative

Hypothetical imperative

Ends and means

Aunt Bea

Moral agent

Moral standing

Sentience

Speciesism

Ethical theory

The story of Mathew Donnelly

J.S. Mill's basic utilitarian argument

Legal rights

Moral rights

Universal human rights

Deontological ethics

Justification

The social contract

Belief system

The bio-centric outlook on nature

Ultimate moral attitude

Respect for nature

Set of rules of duty

Non-malificience

Non-interference

Fidelity

Restitutive justice

Dominion

Stewardship

Atomism

Holism

Speciesism

Ecosophy

Firm obligations

Personal virtues

Intrinsic value

Instrumental value

Animal rights

The attributes of philosophy

The attributes of ethics

Environmental ethics

Balance of nature

Biotic pyramid

Self-realization

Bioregionalism

Biotic pyramid

Biocentric egalitarianism

Energy circuit

Equilibrium

The "dominant worldview"

Land preservation

Resource depletion

Waste disposal

Species extinction

Habitat destruction

Self-ownership

Labour-mixing

Value-adding

Consequences/consequentialism

Happiness/well-being

Moral equality

Short Answer Questions:

How do you define environmental ethics?

What are factual claims?

What are moral claims?

What is intrinsic value? What has intrinsic value?

What is instrumental value? What has instrumental value?

How do these two terms come into play?

How has the green movement contributed to the field of environmental ethics?

What contribution has the science of ecology made to environmental ethics?

What do we mean when we say a theory is "anthropocentric", "biocentric", or "ecocentric"?

What values are at stake when we talk about animal rights?

Explain some of the problems associated with extensionism.

How do we define "moral agency" versus "moral standing"? How does this distinction allow us to understand concepts like anthropocentrism, biocentrism, utilitarianism?

Questions on ethical theories:

How do you define: a) utilitarianism; b) rights-based ethics; c) virtue ethics?

What are the key differences between these approaches?

What are their components and basic terms of each approach?

What is meant by "ends" and "means"?

What does Kant mean when he refers to "the moral law"?

How does ends/means thinking connect to arguments supporting rights?

What is the significance of Regan's "Aunt Bea" example?

What are rights? What is the relationship between rights and duties?

Select one of the modern examples of virtue ethics (care ethics, College of Physicians & Surgeons, student codes of ethics), and explain in your own words how this approach could conflict with utilitarian or deontological ethical approaches.

What are the three elements of utilitarian theory?

Which ethical theory do you consider the most persuasive: Rights-based ethics? Utilitarian ethics? Virtue ethics? Give one or more examples that explain your position.

What are the limitations of each of our three major ethical theories?

Are consequences all that matter? What about personal responsibility? What about rights and duties?

Is happiness all that matters?

Is moral equality too strict?

Questions on readings:

Describe and evaluate Fox's four arguments in support of vegetarianism.

Identify the factual claims that are part of Fox’s argument. How much of the pro-vegetarian stance depends on these claims?

Does Fox provide quality factual support?

What is Locke's argument about the legitimate acquisition of private property?

How does Locke's argument become relevant in the debate about environmental ethics

How does the concept of "teleological centre of life" play a part in Taylor's argument?

One way to look at Singer's argument is to say that Singer is attempting to "shift the burden of proof" in the debate about environmental ethics. What is meant by this statement? How does the notion of burden of proof enter the argument?

Re-state the basic points in Singer’s argument.

Briefly explain Tom Regan’s argument for animal rights.

What criterion does Regan use to decide which animals get rights and which don’t?

Compare the criterion of moral standing used by Regan to that used by Singer.

Is there a parallel between speciesism and sexism/racism?

In your own words, state whether or not Peter Singer's argument is anthropocentric.

What is labour-mixing?

Is Singer an advocate of animal rights?

What is the moral claim that underpins Hardin’s argument?

How do Locke's property rights argument and Hardin's tragedy of the commons argument relate to environmental issues?

Identify two moral claims associated with Locke's argument.

Re-state Locke's argument about the legitimate acquisition of private property.

What relevance does Locke's argument have for debates about environmental ethics?

In your own words, explain Hardin's tragedy of the commons story, and explain why you do or don’t think Hardin's conclusions are applicable to issues like resource depletion.

Identify the factual claims that are part of the force behind Hardin's argument.

What is wrong with the tragedy of the commons argument?

Using concepts we’ve looked at in class (e.g. anthropocentrism/biocentrism, extensionism, atomism/holism), how would you characterize Taylor’s position?

Explain Taylor’s theory of “Respect for Nature”Explain Taylor's three-step theory of environmental ethics.What duties are mandated by Taylor's theory?

Why does Singer think that speciesism is morally unacceptable?

Re-state the basic points in Singer's argument.

Briefly explain Regan's argument in favour of animal rights.What is the criterion Regan uses to decide which animals get rights and which don't?

Compare the criterion of moral standing used by Regan to that of Singer.

What are some of the arguments that can be put forward in favour of vegetarian dietary choices. How would you respond to these arguments?

How does eco-sabotage, as discussed by Foreman, enter into debates about environmental ethics?

Which of our environmental theories is it a significant problem for?

Explain and give examples of the dominant worldview described by deep ecology.

What role does the concept of "self-realization" play in the arguments of Taylor and/or other authors we have examined?

What are the differences between St. Thomas Aquinas's and Bookshin's use of the notion of hierarchy?

Outline the argument often made by ecofeminists about patriarchy in contemporary society. How does this relate to environmental issues.

What argument made by Bookshin in support of social ecology?

Do these arguments convince you that radical environmentalism is justifiable?

Explain why St. Thomas Aquinas, Locke, and Kant can be called "anthropocentrists".

Name and briefly explain (in a few paragraphs) Michael Fox’s four “mutually reinforcing” arguments for vegetarianism?

Does Fox’s argument lead to what we called in class a “firm obligation”, or merely a “personal virtue”?

What are some of the environmental issues that arise in the Genesis creation story?

What type of environmental perspective do you think Genesis ultimately rest on?

Can human beings be friends to non-human animals? Why does Aquinas think this question is important?

How does Aquinas go about arguing that humans should not be cruel to non-humans?

Is there a difference between dominion and stewardship? Which is related to the idea of natural hierarchy?

How is the notion of equilibrium integrated into the theory of Aldo Leopold?

How do deep ecologists make use of the idea of interconnectedness?

How does Murray Bookchin explain the roots/solutions of our ecological crisis?

Explain some problems/criticisms associated with Bookchin's social ecology.

What, according to Peter Singer, is the relationship between speciesism and sexism/racism?

Explain the major differences between deep and shallow ecologists.

What are the ultimate norms of deep ecology? How do these norms justify the deep ecology platform?

Explain the differences between the four major positions we have concentrated on; anthropocentrism, biocentrism, ecocentrism and political ecology.

In your own words, state clearly whether you think Christianity makes a positive or a negative contribution to the relationship between humans and the natural world.

In your own words, explain which type of value you think Orwell primarily has in mind while he decides to shoot the elephant.

Sample Essay questions:

Outline Paul Taylor's biocentric theory and Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic. Identify some similarities, and outline some important differences.

Select one moral argument that supports anthropocentric ways of thinking and clearly explain its strengths and weaknesses. Explain why the moral argument you've selected is ultimately either convincing or unconvincing.

Clearly state the ultimate norms of deep ecology, and explain how these norms contribute to the deep ecology platform.

Explain Bookchin's argument for social ecology by looking at his notions of first and second nature, his idea of the "grow or die" economic paradigm, and his recommendations for an ecologically sustainable society.

How does Singer make use of utilitarianism in designing his moral argument?

Explain the idea of "logic of domination".

What does an author mean when he or she invokes the term "biocentric equality"? Give some examples and discuss some of the key implications and limitations.

Explain the major differences between deep ecology, ecofeminism and social ecology.

How does the Genesis story relate to issues in environmental ethics? In other words, what lessons does the Genesis story teach us, and what potential environmental concerns of an ethical nature does it raise?

Good Luck!

Lecture #12

Bookchin’s Social Ecology

“Society is a human creation, and some forms of society lead to an attitude that encourages humans to dominate and destroy the natural world”

“Unless North American Greens and the ecology movement shift their focus toward a social ecology and let deep ecology sink into the pit it has created for us, the ecology movement will become another ugly wart on the skin of society”

Social Ecology has two linked parts:

Bookchin’s critique of Deep Ecology

Bookchin’s positive argument for Social Ecology

Previously: arguments against Deep Ecology

Challenge #1: Overgeneralized responsibility

Who is responsible?

Who should pay the price?

Challenge #2: Eco-radicalism

Radical tendency? or “Fascistic” tendency?

A backlash by moderate environmentalists?

Challenge #3: Problems with bioregionalism

Is this what we desire? Would it have to be enforced by law?

Would bioregionalism have an optimal outcome?

Challenge #4: Deep Ecology versus Social Ecology

Deep Ecology pays attention primarily (exclusively?) to ‘philosophical worldviews’— cultural, spiritual underpinnings of society

What about ‘concrete’ legal, economic and political institutions

Bookchin’s critique of Deep Ecology

We should develop and nurture a new form of “ecological consciousness”

We need to critically examine the “ecological, philosophical and spiritual” structures of modern societies

We need to “radically transform” them to conform to an eco-centric perspective

Critique #1: A “misanthropic” philosophy

“Bio-centricity” is a concept that resonates deeply with environmentalists

But, as an environmental philosophy, it suggests that we should undertake policies of population control and coercion that disregard the rights and basic interests of human beings

Critique #2: Economic structures: grow or die

The capitalist production cycle

àààRaw materials/natural resources ààà

àààCommodities for the open market

The suggestion that we should simply create a new “philosophical worldview” that replaces “dominant worldview” is superficial

Not only cultural changes, but also structural changes are needed

Critique #3: Hierarchies of control

The nature of a “market society”

Domination is fundamental to market society

To overcome this form of domination, one must challenge and replace market society plank by plank

“Unless there is a resolute attempt to fully anchor ecological dislocations in social dislocations; to challenge the vested corporate and political interests we call capitalism; to analyze and attack hierarchy as a reality…”

Positive argument for Social Ecology

We need to identify and replace forms of social domination associated with our economic system

First and second nature…

First nature

“Primeval nature”

Evolutionary processes of which humanity is one minor element

Second nature

“Cultural nature”

The highly institutionalized and constantly evolving form of community we call society

Key point:

We need to achieve ‘complementarity’

Challenges to Bookchin’s Social Ecology

1. How strong are the supposedly causal connections between capitalism/hierarchy/domination and environmental degradation/unsustainable policies?

Don’t spiritual and ideological structures play a more of a role than Bookchin realizes?

2. Is this a compelling approach to human interaction with the natural world?

What role should humanity play as we respond to the environmental crisis? …

An involved role?

Should “noninterference” become our guiding principle?

---

Suggested exam prep:

Be prepared to define/discuss basic concepts and definitions

Be prepared to answer questions like those on the exam review. (Questions might appear on the exam that are not covered in the review)

Understand and be able to spell out the strengths and weaknesses of our three major ethical theories

Understand and be able to describe arguments from each of the major schools of thought in environmental ethics (anthropocentrism, extensionism, biocentrism, ecocentrism, political ecology)

Be prepared to develop your own argument supporting one or more of the theories we’ve studied

** See the sections on Final Exam Review posted on the webpage

Lecture #11

Political ecology (part 1):

Communitarian Ecology

Achterberg ‘s

“Sustainability, Community and Democracy”

Carter’s

“Worker Co-operatives and Green Political Theory”

Lockean ‘property rights’

The Tragedy of the Commons

Shallow ecology

Deep ecology’s bio-regionalism / minority tradition

“Values of community”

Reacting to “liberal environmentalism”:

Maintenance of existing institutions: the status quo

Rights and obligations

Values of personal freedom, autonomy, rule of law, and democracy

“Liberal environmentalism is too willing to rely on government, typically federal governments, to protect the environment and natural resources”

“Whether the problem is global warming, toxic waste, or clean water, the majority of environmental groups can generally be counted on to argue that giving governments greater authority or more funding is the answer”

Sustainability, Community and Democracy

“Sustainability cannot be achieved without institutional changes in liberal democratic societies”

What’s needed is a shift towards “associative democracy”, which would “broaden and enhance the democratic character of society”

Associative democracy strengthens community ties and thereby makes it more probable that sustainability will be achieved

Background to anti-domination theories

Environmental Racism

World Bank Memo

The Chipko movement

Eco-feminism

Ecofeminists have frequently pointed out linguistic connections between oppression of women and land. Consider common concepts like the following:

Mother Nature

Mother Earth

Taming nature

Reaping nature's bounty

Raping the land

Key concepts:

Patriarchy

Conceptual framework

Oppressive conceptual framework

The “logic of domination”

‘Patriarchy’…

“The concept of patriarchy refers to a general expectation that men have the primary legitimate power and responsibility for the community as a whole”

Conceptual Framework:

A set of basic beliefs, values attitudes and assumptions which shape and reflect how one views oneself and the world (age, class, nationality, religion)

Personal identity

Socially constructed identity (i.e., not determined strictly by nature & instinct alone)

Oppressive Conceptual Framework

Explains or justifies relationships of domination subordination

Dehumanization of slaves

Creation of ‘artificial’ racial caste groups (‘dalits’ in India, Roma (or ‘gypsies) in Europe)

Value dualisms

Disjunctive pairs: oppositional & exclusive

Examples:

Mind/body

Reason/emotion

Male/female

Value hierarchical thinking

Up-down ranking of similar phenomena

Places status and prestige on phenomena ranked at the top of the hierarchy

Logic of domination

Pattern of thinking in which two groups (men/women) are distinguished by some characteristics (rationality/emotion)

A value hierarchy is attributed to this attributed to these

One group is said to justly subordinated based on the hierarchy

Two arguments forms leading to domination

Argument A:

Humans do, and plants and rocks do not, have the capacity to consciously and radically change the community in which they live

Whatever has this capacity is morally superior to whatever lacks it

THEREFORE Humans are morally superior to plants and rocks

For any X and Y, if X is superior to Y, X is justified in dominating or subordinating Y

THEREFORE humans are morally justified in dominating plants and rocks

Argument B:

Men are identified with the mental/human whereas women are identified with the physical/natural

Whatever is identified with mental/human is superior to its opposite

THEREFORE Women are inferior to men

For any X and Y, if X is superior to Y, X is justified in dominating or subordinating Y

THEREFORE Men are justified in dominating and subordinating women

Lecture #11

Convergence:

Sustainability

Great Lakes sewage treatment

Cormorants

Wolfe Island wind turbine project

Great Lakes sewage treatment

Anthropocentrism à à Bio-centrism à à

Eco-centrism à à Political ecology à à

Cormorants

Anthropocentrism à Bio-centrism ß ß

Eco-centrism à

Wolfe Island wind turbine project

Anthropocentrism àà Bio-centrism ß ß

Eco-centrism ß ß àà

Norton's convergence hypothesis predicts that non-anthropocentric and human-based philosophical positions will actually converge on long-sighted, multi-value environmental policy.

Deep Ecology

Sources

Leopold’s “Land Ethic” (holistic, non-anthropocentric),

Nature literature, art and poetry (Henry David Thoreau, Robert Frost)

The Gaia hypothesis

Spiritualism from Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism

Environmental activism, both radical and moderate

Finding common cause

Coalition-building

Central message:

We need to build a new “ecological consciousness”

We need to look critically at the “ecological, philosophical and spiritual” structures of modern societies

We need to “radically transform” these structures to conform with an eco-centric perspective

‘Deep’ versus ‘Shallow’ Ecology:

Shallow ecology worldview	Deep ecology worldview
Dominance over nature	Harmony with nature
Environment as resource	Nature as our equal
Economic growth, population growth	Simple needs, stable population growth
Unlimited resources	Finite natural resources
Technological solutions	Non-dominating science
National/centralized community	Minority tradition, bioregion
Consumerism	Simple needs, recycling

Deep Ecology’s two ‘justifying norms’:

A. Self-realization

B. Bio-centric equality

The Deep Ecology Platform

The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life have intrinsic value

Richness and diversity of life forms are equally valuable

Humans have no right to reduce richness and diversity except to fulfill vital needs

The flourishing of non-human life requires a decrease in human population

Human interference in the natural world is currently extreme and rapidly worsening

Changes in policy are needed, including changes in ideological, economic and technological structures

Ideological change is essentially learning to appreciate “life quality” over accumulation and consumption

Those who agree have obligations work towards transformation

Challenge #1:

Overgeneralization in assigning responsibility

Who is responsible for current environmental problems?

Who should pay the price?

Sounds like the ‘Western environmentalist’ telling those in the developing world to “stop viewing nature as a resource!” (even while many continue to struggle at subsistence level)

Are Inuit in the Canadian Arctic, who rely for much of the year on Caribou hunting, “un-self-realized” people?

Challenge #2:

Eco-radicalism

Radical tendency? or “Fascistic” tendency?

A backlash by moderate environmentalists?

Challenge #3:

Questions about bioregionalism

Is this what we desire? Would it have to be enforced by law?

Would bioregionalism have an optimal outcome?

Challenge #4:

Deep Ecology versus Social Ecology

Deep Ecology pays attention primarily (exclusively?) to ‘philosophical worldviews’— cultural, spiritual underpinnings of society

What about more ‘concrete’ social structures?

Legal, economic and political institutions

This debate will be our focus in upcoming lectures

Political ecology (part 1):

Communitarian Ecology

Achterberg ‘s

“Sustainability, Community and Democracy”

Carter’s

“Worker Co-operatives and Green Political Theory”

Lockean ‘property rights’

The Tragedy of the Commons

Shallow ecology

Deep ecology’s bio-regionalism / minority tradition

“Values of community”

Reacting to “liberal environmentalism”:

Maintenance of existing institutions: the status quo

Rights and obligations

Values of personal freedom, autonomy, rule of law, and democracy

“Liberal environmentalism is too willing to rely on government, typically federal governments, to protect the environment and natural resources”

“Whether the problem is global warming, toxic waste, or clean water, the majority of environmental groups can generally be counted on to argue that giving governments greater authority or more funding is the answer”

Sustainability, Community and Democracy

“Sustainability cannot be achieved without institutional changes in liberal democratic societies”

What’s needed is a shift towards “associative democracy”, which would “broaden and enhance the democratic character of society”

Associative democracy strengthens community ties and thereby makes it more probable that sustainability will be achieved

Lecture #10

Convergence:

Sustainability

Great Lakes sewage treatment

Cormorants

Wolfe Island wind turbine project

Great Lakes sewage treatment

Anthropocentrism à à Bio-centrism à à

Eco-centrism à à Political ecology à à

Cormorants

Anthropocentrism à Bio-centrism ß ß

Eco-centrism à

Wolfe Island wind turbine project

Anthropocentrism àà Bio-centrism ß ß

Eco-centrism ß ß àà

Norton's convergence hypothesis predicts that non-anthropocentric and human-based philosophical positions will actually converge on long-sighted, multi-value environmental policy.

Deep Ecology

Sources

Leopold’s “Land Ethic” (holistic, non-anthropocentric),

Nature literature, art and poetry (Henry David Thoreau, Robert Frost)

The Gaia hypothesis

Spiritualism from Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism

Environmental activism, both radical and moderate

Finding common cause

Coalition-building

Central message:

We need to build a new “ecological consciousness”

We need to look critically at the “ecological, philosophical and spiritual” structures of modern societies

We need to “radically transform” these structures to conform with an eco-centric perspective

‘Deep’ versus ‘Shallow’ Ecology:

Shallow ecology worldview	Deep ecology worldview
Dominance over nature	Harmony with nature
Environment as resource	Nature as our equal
Economic growth, population growth	Simple needs, stable population growth
Unlimited resources	Finite natural resources
Technological solutions	Non-dominating science
National/centralized community	Minority tradition, bioregion
Consumerism	Simple needs, recycling

Deep Ecology’s two ‘justifying norms’:

A. Self-realization

B. Bio-centric equality

The Deep Ecology Platform

The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life have intrinsic value

Richness and diversity of life forms are equally valuable

Humans have no right to reduce richness and diversity except to fulfill vital needs

The flourishing of non-human life requires a decrease in human population

Human interference in the natural world is currently extreme and rapidly worsening

Changes in policy are needed, including changes in ideological, economic and technological structures

Ideological change is essentially learning to appreciate “life quality” over accumulation and consumption

Those who agree have obligations work towards transformation

Challenge #1:

Overgeneralization in assigning responsibility

Who is responsible for current environmental problems?

Who should pay the price?

Sounds like the ‘Western environmentalist’ telling those in the developing world to “stop viewing nature as a resource!” (even while many continue to struggle at subsistence level)

Are Inuit in the Canadian Arctic, who rely for much of the year on Caribou hunting, “un-self-realized” people?

Challenge #2:

Eco-radicalism

Radical tendency? or “Fascistic” tendency?

A backlash by moderate environmentalists?

Challenge #3:

Questions about bioregionalism

Is this what we desire? Would it have to be enforced by law?

Would bioregionalism have an optimal outcome?

Challenge #4:

Deep Ecology versus Social Ecology

Deep Ecology pays attention primarily (exclusively?) to ‘philosophical worldviews’— cultural, spiritual underpinnings of society

What about more ‘concrete’ social structures?

Legal, economic and political institutions

This debate will be our focus in upcoming lectures

Political ecology (part 1):

Communitarian Ecology

Achterberg ‘s

“Sustainability, Community and Democracy”

Carter’s

“Worker Co-operatives and Green Political Theory”

Lockean ‘property rights’

The Tragedy of the Commons

Shallow ecology

Deep ecology’s bio-regionalism / minority tradition

“Values of community”

Reacting to “liberal environmentalism”:

Maintenance of existing institutions: the status quo

Rights and obligations

Values of personal freedom, autonomy, rule of law, and democracy

“Liberal environmentalism is too willing to rely on government, typically federal governments, to protect the environment and natural resources”

“Whether the problem is global warming, toxic waste, or clean water, the majority of environmental groups can generally be counted on to argue that giving governments greater authority or more funding is the answer”

Sustainability, Community and Democracy

“Sustainability cannot be achieved without institutional changes in liberal democratic societies”

What’s needed is a shift towards “associative democracy”, which would “broaden and enhance the democratic character of society”

Associative democracy strengthens community ties and thereby makes it more probable that sustainability will be achieved

Lecture #9

Deep Ecology

Sources

Leopold’s “Land Ethic” (holistic, non-anthropocentric),

Nature literature, art and poetry (Henry David Thoreau, Robert Frost)

The Gaia hypothesis

Spiritualism from Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism

Environmental activism, both radical and moderate

Finding common cause

Coalition-building

Key message:

We need to build a new “ecological consciousness”

We need to look critically at the “ecological, philosophical and spiritual” structures of modern societies

We need to “radically transform” these structures to conform with an eco-centric perspective

‘Deep’ versus ‘Shallow’ Ecology:

Shallow ecology worldview	Deep ecology worldview
Dominance over nature	Harmony with nature
Environment as resource	Nature as our equal
Economic growth, population growth	Simple needs, stable population growth
Unlimited resources	Finite natural resources
Technological solutions	Non-dominating science
National/centralized community	Minority tradition, bioregion
Consumerism	Simple needs, recycling

Deep Ecology’s two ‘justifying norms’:

A. Self-realization

B. Bio-centric equality

The Deep Ecology Platform

The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life have intrinsic value

Richness and diversity of life forms are equally valuable

Humans have no right to reduce richness and diversity except to fulfill vital needs

The flourishing of non-human life requires a decrease in human population

Human interference in the natural world is currently extreme and rapidly worsening

Changes in policy are needed, including changes in ideological, economic and technological structures

Ideological change is essentially learning to appreciate “life quality” over accumulation and consumption

Those who agree have obligations work towards transformation

Challenge #1:

Overgeneralization in assigning responsibility

Who is responsible for current environmental problems?

Who should pay the price?

Sounds like the ‘Western environmentalist’ telling those in the developing world to “stop viewing nature as a resource!” (even while many continue to struggle at subsistence level)

Are Inuit in the Canadian Arctic, who rely for much of the year on Caribou hunting, “un-self-realized” people?

Challenge #2:

Eco-radicalism

Radical tendency? or “Fascistic” tendency?

A backlash by moderate environmentalists?

Challenge #3:

Questions about bioregionalism

Is this what we desire? Would it have to be enforced by law?

Would bioregionalism have an optimal outcome?

Challenge #4:

Deep Ecology versus Social Ecology

Deep Ecology pays attention primarily (exclusively?) to ‘philosophical worldviews’— cultural, spiritual underpinnings of society

What about more ‘concrete’ social structures?

Legal, economic and political institutions

This debate will be our focus in upcoming lectures

Political ecology (part 1):

“Communitarian Ecology”

Lockean property rights

Shallow ecology

“Liberal environmentalism”

Maintenance of existing institutions: the status quo

Rights and obligations

Values of personal freedom, autonomy, rule of law, and democracy

“Values of community”:

The tragedy of the commons

Deep ecology’s bio-regionalism / minority tradition

Communitarian ecology:

Reacting to “liberal environmentalism”:

“Liberal environmentalism is too willing to rely on government, typically federal governments, to protect the environment and natural resources”

“Whether the problem is global warming, toxic waste, or clean water, the majority of environmental groups can generally be counted on to argue that giving governments greater authority or more funding is the answer”

Two essays:

Achterberg ‘s

“Sustainability, Community and Democracy”

Carter’s

“Worker Co-operatives and Green Political Theory”

Sustainability, Community and Democracy

“Sustainability cannot be achieved without institutional changes in liberal democratic societies”

What’s needed is a shift towards “associative democracy”, which would “broaden and enhance the democratic character of society”

Associative democracy strengthens community ties and thereby makes it more probable that sustainability will be achieved

Two concepts of sustainability:

The sustainable society à

Sustainable development à

“Sustainability” ààà

ààà

“Establishing sustainable patterns of production and consumption”

Argument # 1

Sustainability presupposes “community”

However, liberal democratic societies erode community

Therefore: liberal democratic societies are oriented against sustainability

Argument # 2

Associative democracy nurtures values of community

Associative democracy:

Embraces the views and attitudes of “the grassroots”

Leads to consensus among “deliberators”

Therefore: sustainability is likely to be achieved under a system characterized by associative democracy

Worker Co-operatives and Green Political Theory

“The worker co-operative”

An organization which is owned and controlled by those working in/for it

Characteristics of the “green cooperative”:

Small(er) scale production

A strong preference for participatory, workplace democracy

Presumed benefits:

Greater commitment to equality contributes to reducing imbalances in the distribution of power, wealth and income throughout society

Greater commitment to a higher quality of life

Greater commitment to local communities

Lecture # 8

Eco-centrism #1 –

Aldo Leopold and “The Land Ethic”

Aldo Leopold was a pioneer in field ecology and environmental ethics

He was one of the earliest to attempt to bridge these two fields

Land community

Not just the living creatures; flora, fauna

Also the soils, watersheds, plants, animals

—“the land”

The balance of nature

Biotic pyramid

Food chains (carry nutrients from low to high)

Energy circuit (energy flows through the food chains)

Pyramid exists in a self-sustaining balance

“Equilibrium”

Land Ethic’s primary principle:

“A thing is right when it preserves the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”

“Think like a mountain”

The attitude Leopold advocates toward the natural world

What’s unique about this eco-centrist approach?

Always differs from anthropocentric theories

Always differs from atomistic/individualistic theories

The locus of moral concern is: the ecosystem

Self-sustaining natural ecosystem

Diversity and complexity within ecosystems

Therefore: it is sometimes acceptable to mistreat and kill nonhuman animals (whenever the land community benefits)

Arguments for The Land Ethic

Metaphysical arguments

Epistemological arguments

Practical arguments

Challenges to The Land Ethic

Facts and Values à

What is the basis of Leopold’s environmental ethic?

What is the underlying principle?

Natural equilibrium

How strong is this moral claim?

Problems with holism à

Eco-centric theories hold that “ecosystems” are the focus of moral concern

Leopold argues that we should always promote the stability, beauty and integrity of biotic communities

What constitutes illegitimate interference?

How far should we go in promoting this?

Are biotic communities ever superior to human lives?

Could this be a form of “eco-fascism”