SotA Anthology 2015-16
What this equates to is
a lack of justification for
attributing goal-driven moral
consideration to ecosystems,
and by extension justice.
If ecosystems are simply a
compound of self-interested
beings working for the good
of the individual then saving
the rainforest simply means
protecting the flourishing of
the individual.
What this espouses is an
individualistic biocentrism.
Life is indeed the focus of
morality and justice but it is
for the individual entity not
the species or ecosystem.
The response to this is
that for an organism to
flourish it is dependent
on the environment, so
consideration must be given
to the ecosystem and not
simply the individual. The
environment must ascend
to a meta-ethical level to
allow for the flourishing
of individuals within the
context of the environment
(Holland, 2008). However,
all this approach achieves is
to highlight the instrumental
value of nature for an
organism’s
flourishing,
it does not entail direct
rights of justice, or moral
entitlements to the whole.
Deep ecologists take this
view to the next level and
promote
a
biospheric
egalitarian approach to
the
environment.
This
view
embraces
the
concerns that ecosystems
are fundamental in the
flourishing of all life. They
reject individualism and
embrace an expanded
self that incorporates the
whole of the planet. Doing
harm to nature is therefore
doing harm to oneself.
Ecosystems as a matter of
fact do not exist in isolation.
They interact with one
another; their delineation
cannot
be
completely
distinguished; and no two
ecosystems of the same
kind are ever identical
(Clewell
and
Aronson,
2007). The deep ecologists
promote this view that
everything is connected:
the mountains, rivers, and
rocks. Yet, the problem
persists for deep ecology in
so far as it cannot attribute
moral standing to abstract
ideas such as ecosystems.
It cannot explain the way in
which mountains, rivers or
rocks have an interest. The
concept of justice becomes
anthropocentric, as harming
the environment is harming
oneself; it is an egoistic ethic.
It
still
remains
that
ecosystems do not exist
in isolation. Our actions as
individuals and as a species
are impacting the whole
planet. Here is another
scenario:
Hank the astronaut’s next
planet is a small one. It is
covered in all manner of
non-sentient
vegetation.
There is one big blue
mountain, at the summit
of which is a caldera full of
water. From this a single
stream flows down which
irrigates the whole planet.
Hank drops a bio-toxin
into the caldera that will
subsequently eradicate all
life on the planet.
This situation highlights the
interconnectedness within
an ecosystem. It also shows
that for an organism to
flourish it is necessary that
human actions do not harm
the ecosystem. Therefore,
human actions must be
such that it is wrong for a
moral agent to purposely
harm
an
ecosystem.
However, if it is wrong
for Hank to purposefully
harm the ecosystem, then
surely this is an injustice
to the ecosystem? I do
not believe it is. The
harm is done indirectly to
ecosystem through the
individual members. The
harm happens because
the water has instrumental
value to life on the planet
and the good it gives is lost.
The counterclaim is that the
ecosystem as a necessary
condition for the flourishing
of individuals is inseparable
from the individual, and as
such deserves as much
consideration to justice.
But, again I would have