Download
1 / 23
300 likes | 563 Vues
DEEP ECOLOGY. AN ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICAL POSITION. Human beings are destroying the planet. It is a major concern of environmental ethics that human beings are on a fast track toward destructions of our planet making it uninhabitable if changes involving human behavior are not implemented soon.
E N D
DEEP ECOLOGY AN ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICAL POSITION
Human beings are destroying the planet • It is a major concern of environmental ethics that human beings are on a fast track toward destructions of our planet making it uninhabitable if changes involving human behavior are not implemented soon.
The need for a new ethic, an environmental ethic became apparent • Arne Naess, was professor emeritus at the University of Oslo, Norway. Born in 1913, he was appointed professor of philosophy at age 27. He resigned in 1969 to devote himself to environmental matters. In 1972, he formulated the phrase Deep Ecology, to distinguish a moral relationship to the natural world from simply an instrumental one.
One position taken within Environmental Ethics is the distinction between instrumental and non-instrumental value • Instrumental value is determined by the amount of usefulness of something, like water for instance. • Non-instrumental value is sometimes called intrinsic value and refers to things that have value that already exists in the world, like water for its own sake and not just valued for its instrumental value.
Why do we have this problem? • People don’t have a commitment to an ecologically balanced life because many people are not aware of the intrinsic value in nonhuman beings and natural objects. • People are not aware of the need or validity of an ecocentricenvironmental ethic.
What is ecocentrism? • a philosophy or perspective that places intrinsic value on all living organisms and their natural environment, regardless of their perceived usefulness or importance to human beings. • Instead people are anthropocentric.
What is anthropocentrism? • Regarding man’s belief of himself as conqueror of nature and as the most important central being in the universe. Anthropocentric people believe that nature is in existence solely for them to use rather than nature being in existence for its own sake.
Arne Naess’ Deep Ecology insists that people need to learn to love and respect nature. • Have gratitude for nature. • Humility is necessary
What is Shallow Ecology? • Shallow ecology is anthropocentric. Its recommendations are justified exclusively in matters relating to human health and not the health of the planet for its own sake. • Shallow ecology concerns itself with short-term solutions using research and technology to find ways to manipulate and exploit the environment and keep production and sales of goods high.
For example: • The shallow reaction to acid rain is to demand more research and find more species of trees that will tolerate increased levels of acidity • rather than deep ecology’s approach, which is to fight against the economic conditions and the technology responsible for producing acid rain in the first place.
Shallow vs. Deep Ecology • Shallow ecologists tend to see plants, animals, and natural objects valuable only as resources for humans. • If no human use is known, or seems likely to be found, it does not matter if they are destroyed. • Rather than the deep approach, which is concerned with ecosystems, resources and habitats for all life forms for their own sake.
Shallow solutions are not solutions • Arne Naess believed shallow ecology is masquerading as a solution to the world’s environmental problems. • Shallow ecology tends to keep people out of placing the onus on themselves for bringing forth solutions for environmental problems, because shallow ecologists make people think solutions for them are on the way.
What is the Solution? • Deep ecology. An ecocentric environmental ethic that includes plants and animals is necessary in order to live in a balanced way with the natural world on which we all depend for survival. • This can be achieve by an attitude shift.
Arne Naessstates, “Conservation strategies are more eagerly implemented by people who love that they are conserving, and who are convinced that what they love is intrinsically loveable. Such lovers will not want to hide their attitudes and values rather they will increasingly give voice to them in public. They possess a genuine ethics of conservation, not merely a tactically useful instrument for human survival.”
Eight Tenets of Deep EcologyThe first tenet: • The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent worth). These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes.
2nd Tenet of Deep Ecology • Richness and diversity of life forms contributes to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
3rd Tenet of Deep Ecology • Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
4th Tenet of Deep Ecology • The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantially smaller human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires a smaller human population.
5th Tenet of Deep Ecology • Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
6th Tenet of Deep Ecology • Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7th Tenet of Deep Ecology • The ideological change will be mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between bigness and greatness.
8th Tenet of Deep Ecology • Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.
