Environmental Ethics

Recently several philosophers have argued that environmental reform movements cannot halt humankind’s destruction of the biosphere because they still operate within the anthropocentric humanism that forms the root of the ecological crisis. According to “radical” environmentalists, disaster can be averted only if we adopt a nonanthropocentric understanding of reality that teaches us to live harmoniouslyon the Earth. Martin Heidegger agrees that humanism leads human beings beyond their proper limits while forcing other beings beyond their limits as weIl. The doctrine of the “rights of man” justifies human exploitation of nonhuman beings. Paradoxically, however, the doctrine of rights for nonhuman beings does not escape the orbit of humanism. According to Heidegger, a nonanthropocentric conception of humanity and its relation to nature must go beyond the doctrine of rights. We can dweIl harmoniously on Earth only by submitting to our primary obligation: to be open for the Being of beings. We need a new way of understanding Being, a new ethos, that lets beings manifest themselves not merely as objects for human ends, but as intrinsically important. Heidegger calls this ethos the “fourfold” of earth and sky, gods and mortals. Humanists argue that Heidegger is wrong to abandon the principle of human rights in favor of the notion that we are obligated to “let beings be,” while some radical environmentalists accuse hirn of being a humanist because he supposedly overestimates the importance of humankind’s ability to speak. Heidegger insists, however, that language makes possible culture, without which thereis no human experience of nature. An environmentally sound ethos. can arise, according to Heidegger, only from a shift within the cultural heritage of the West. Richard Rorty agrees that we must become open for a new “conversation” with the West, even if this requires abandoning traditionally important fields such as epistemology. The need to develop a new understanding of Being is so great that thinkers from the analytic and continental traditions of philosophy are finally initiating a long-overdue dialogue.

Most philosophical discussion of the moral status of animals takes place within a context of traditional ethics. I argue that the conceptual apparatus of utilitarianism and rights theory is historically and logically tied to an individualistic, atomistic concept of society. The liberal-democratic tradition is thus an unsuitable framework for understanding, analyzing, and solving environmental problems, including themoral status of animals. Concepts such as stewardship or trusteeship are more appropriate for the development of an environmental ethic.

Underlying solar energy development is a fundamental issue of values and individual choices. Where solar energy comes to include such ideas as appropriate decentralized technology, self-sufficiency and autonomy, and a responsibility to conserve and preserve the environment, solar energy can become a channel for exploring alternative values. The requirement here is to view solar energy not as just anotherenergy source maintaining an ever increasing fiow of consumption goods. Rather, solar energy should be viewed as an opportunity for the development of values which expand individual choices through the creative process of the community paradigm.

The recent controversy over whether Marxism is an ecologically viable theory or can justify astate of harmony between man and nature has a serious flaw because none of the participants in the discussion seems to think that technology is intrinsic to the reconciliation of man with nature. While it is correct that the writings of the early Marx offer some basis for the reconciliation, the later Marx was preoccupiedwith the question of nature’s instrumentality or the human significance of nature, and he saw technology as the human mode of dealing with nature. Marx and Marxists have contributed to making us aware of man’s exploitation of and alienation from other men, but not man’s exploitation of and alienation from nature. To eradicate the second requires a radical deconstruction of modern technomorphic culture and its metaphysical foundations.