Leopold s Strategy Leopold

Transcription

1 Leopold s Strategy Leopold Ecocentrism: The Land Ethic with commentary from Callicott, Conceptual Foundations of the Land Ethic Strategy is to argue that the ethical structure of modern society should envision morality as concerned not only with human communities but also with the ecological community 1 2 What is an Ecological Ethic? Community Ethic Ecological ethic: An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence. Ethics are possibly a kind of community instinct in-themaking. (164) Philosophical ethic: An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct. (163) Leopold thinks these two ethics are basically the same: Ethics as community cooperation contrasts with many Western philosophical traditions (Moses, Hobbes, Rawls, Plato, etc.) Either God hands down moral codes or moral codes are grounded in reason Both require interdependent individuals/groups to develop modes of cooperation In the non-theist traditions, individual rationality defines those who are moral beings and the nature of moral valuing Both are consistent with a Humean/Darwinian conception of moral development Both emphasize the role of the community Leopold s ecological ethic looks to the social sentiments of beings as adaptations which increase the fitness of those who form cooperative social bonds These social moral sentiments extend out from one s immediate social group to include all fellow creatures (see Darwin s quote on ) 3 4

2 Community Concept Land Ethic and Community Concept All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts...the land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land. (164) Callicott: The community concept is the basic concept of ecology...once land is popularly perceived as a biotic community...a correlative land ethic will emerge in the collective cultural consciousness. (177) Humans are not conquerers, but members of the ecological community If one interprets human history ecologically, then one understands the conquests of humans as dependent on the lands tamed and used for human purposes plants and land determined the course of human history as much as the humans utilizing these resources Just as human society depends on security and economic interdependency with (ethical) rules maintaining this social balance by restricting freedoms, so too an interdependent ecological community can be maintained only by similar restrictions on freedom of action Leopold envisions his land ethic as such a restriction that is meant to maintain the ecological community 5 6 Moral Consideration of Wholes Holistic Conception of the Biotic Pyramid Most ethical systems are egocentric, they are concerned with the interests of the self and specifically a rational, psychological self Any moral consideration given to the environment or to a whole ecosystem depends on its value to this rational self Land is not simply soil--it is the foundation of the earth s energy circuit starting with the sun s energy Bottom layer: soil The conceptual foundations of Leopold s Land Ethic is based on Hume s and Darwin s social-focused ethic The interests of society are our interests and are the proper objects of our moral sentiments Next layer: plants Next layer: insects Next: bird and rodents Humans have inherited a social moral sense from primates Many additional layers until... Our social moral sense must include the entire ecological community of which we are a part Top layer: larger carnivores 7 8

3 Humans Presence on the Pyramid Fountain of Energy The inhabitants of a particular layer are defined by what they eat Inhabitants of one layer eat and depend on the inhabitants of lower layers The higher the level on the pyramid, the more the inhabitants depend on the inhabitants of lower levels Humans inhabit a middle layer--they eat both meat and vegetables These chains of dependency reflect the transmission of energy in the food chain Land, then, is not merely soil; it is a fountain of energy flowing through a circuit of soils, plants, and animals. Food chains are the living channels which conduct energy upward; death and decay return it to the soil. (168) Upward flow of energy depends on the complex, interrelated structures of the pyramid Land is seen as a superorganism metaphorically represented as the interconnected energy unit from pyramid base (soil) to apex (carnivores) 9 10 Evolution and Changes in Energy Circuit The Land Ethic Evolutionary changes in the circuit require changes and adaptation from other parts of the energy unit Evolution s series of changes lengthens and diversifies the flow of energy and energy circuit Man-made changes are fundamentally different than evolutionary changes Man-made changes occur violently and rapidly -- not all environments can adapt Man-made changes create disorganization and reduced complexity A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. (172) How we ought to behave toward the land is not solely an issue of economic feasibility How we ought to act is determined by what is ethically right, aesthetically right, and economically right We ought to act in ways that preserve and protect the entire biotic community Disorganization and reduced complexity reduce the carrying capacity of the land for humans, animals, and plants 11 12

4 Criticism: Environmental Fascism from Callicott Callicott s Response to Regan Regan thinks that Leopold s land ethic is environmental fascism If what governs our moral considerations and behaviors is the stability and welfare of the biotic community and we are members of the biotic community, then what the land ethic justifies for some species applies to humans as well. The problem with Regan s criticism highlights the fundamental difference in Leopold s ethics Regan, like conventional ethical systems, assumes that those things worthy of moral consider must meet some criteria (e.g., subjects-of-a-life). Once this criteria is met, then moral obligations apply to them equally. So, if the land ethic implies that certain species (deer) be culled to protect the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community, then we are justified in culling other overpopulated species (humans) which threaten the welfare of the biotic community So, the land ethic appears to imply that it is our duty to allow or bring about human death en masse in order to decrease the population Applied to the Land Ethic, since humans are members of the biotic community, then whatever actions are necessary to protect the integrity, stability, and aesthetics of the biotic community will apply to humans as well. Hence, one might be able to justify harmful acts towards humans in protecting the land Leopold s position does not justify harming humans Leopold s ethical system fundamentally differs from a traditional moral paradigm Leopold s Moral System Human Moral Develop Like Development of a Tree Leopold s moral system can be modeled after the land pyramid Just as progressions from layer to layer on the pyramid reflect different evolutionary responses, so too the moral obligations from layer to layer differ Moral obligations develop with the social involvements of organisms at different levels and remain in place even though there are higher and lower layers One s immediate moral obligations are to those closest to the heartwood, namely one s family As social relations grow and extend outward, then new rings of moral obligation are layered onto the heartwood. Moral commitments to friends, social groups, community, state, nation, humanity grow as one moves from the heartwood. At the same time, one s moral commitments to one s inner circle does not diminish even though one s moral commitments expand into the biotic community of which one is a member

5 Callicott s Conclusion The land ethic, therefore, is not draconian or fascist. It does not cancel human morality. The land ethic may, however, as with any new accretion, demand choices which affect, in turn, the demands of the more interior social-ethical circles...while the land ethic, certainly, does not cancel human morality, neither does it leave it unaffected. (183) While many living things do not have human rights because they are not human, we should treat these organisms with moral respect since they are important, if not essential to the biotic community of which we are a part 17