Environmental Ethics: Pacific Northwest In The 21st Century
Final Essay
Philosophy 310 Environmental Ethics Winter 2012
Andy Moser
Question Three: What does it mean to be an “environmentalist” in the Pacific Northwest in the 21st century? Over the course of this term, we have surveyed several different approaches to environmental ethics. Each would offer a somewhat different response to the question. What is your response? Which of the several ethical stances we have surveyed provides the best orientation for environmentalism in the 21st century?
WINTER 2012
PHILOSOPHY 310 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
ANDY MOSER
What does it mean to be an environmentalist in the Pacific Northwest in the 21st century? Certainly, with our modern understanding of global systems and increased globalization due …show more content…
This is as easily extended to a policy of strict conservation or preservation as it is to resource exploitation, as each of these positions would be in some regard good for humans. From a strong anthropocentrist view, one might “have no interest in preserving penguins for their own sake; penguins are important because people enjoy seeing them walk on rocks.” (Clowney & Mosto, 335) The environmental position here is still that penguins are important. Strict adherence to strong anthropomorphism does not disqualify a person from classification as an environmentalist; in fact with very few exceptions, environmentalists still value human needs and desires and moral concern above those of an individual non-human, which is the fundamental assertion of weak anthropomorphism. Biocentrism offers a much expanded definition of moral standing and intrinsic value; extending these characteristics from humans to all and only individual living things. This concept, in conjunction with the slightly less expanded sentio-centrism of Peter Singer and Tom Regan and the further-expanded moral consideration of the biotic community inherent in ecocentrism and deep ecology, more explicitly defines the moral obligations of humans with regard to environmental policy. The concept of radical equality is perhaps the most contentious claim of biocentrists; however it is neither necessary nor detrimental to the usefulness of biocentric reasoning to environmentalism. All of these positions make definitive claims as to what ought or ought not be done, and though they rely on different reasoning, they agree on appropriate courses of action in most cases. Philosophically the differences here are, undoubtably, significant and worthy of exploration and debate. In the context of modern environmentalism and public policy, however, these fundamentally distinct philosophies work together toward
Philosophy 310 Environmental Ethics Winter 2012
Andy Moser
Question Three: What does it mean to be an “environmentalist” in the Pacific Northwest in the 21st century? Over the course of this term, we have surveyed several different approaches to environmental ethics. Each would offer a somewhat different response to the question. What is your response? Which of the several ethical stances we have surveyed provides the best orientation for environmentalism in the 21st century?
WINTER 2012
PHILOSOPHY 310 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
ANDY MOSER
What does it mean to be an environmentalist in the Pacific Northwest in the 21st century? Certainly, with our modern understanding of global systems and increased globalization due …show more content…
This is as easily extended to a policy of strict conservation or preservation as it is to resource exploitation, as each of these positions would be in some regard good for humans. From a strong anthropocentrist view, one might “have no interest in preserving penguins for their own sake; penguins are important because people enjoy seeing them walk on rocks.” (Clowney & Mosto, 335) The environmental position here is still that penguins are important. Strict adherence to strong anthropomorphism does not disqualify a person from classification as an environmentalist; in fact with very few exceptions, environmentalists still value human needs and desires and moral concern above those of an individual non-human, which is the fundamental assertion of weak anthropomorphism. Biocentrism offers a much expanded definition of moral standing and intrinsic value; extending these characteristics from humans to all and only individual living things. This concept, in conjunction with the slightly less expanded sentio-centrism of Peter Singer and Tom Regan and the further-expanded moral consideration of the biotic community inherent in ecocentrism and deep ecology, more explicitly defines the moral obligations of humans with regard to environmental policy. The concept of radical equality is perhaps the most contentious claim of biocentrists; however it is neither necessary nor detrimental to the usefulness of biocentric reasoning to environmentalism. All of these positions make definitive claims as to what ought or ought not be done, and though they rely on different reasoning, they agree on appropriate courses of action in most cases. Philosophically the differences here are, undoubtably, significant and worthy of exploration and debate. In the context of modern environmentalism and public policy, however, these fundamentally distinct philosophies work together toward