Ecofeminism

Ecofeminism is important for addressing global environmental

issues because:

I. Many dilemmas stemming from the many tradeoff which characterize the
policy makers decisional process in the field of environmental interventions
require that a choice must be taken on what ethical stance to embrace. Very
often the endorsed ethical stances come from cultural and religious norms
deeply rooted in patriarchy, and, therefore, leading to social injustice.

II. In order to achieve the goal of social justice encoded in the concept of
sustainability it is necessary: 1. to take into account the disproportionate cost
borne by women as a consequence of global environmental problems; 2.
overcome the lack of representation of women in public and private
institutions where the power to decide how much and how to intervene lies.
This to ensure a true democratic participation in the delicate decision-
making processes on global environmental policy.

III. Theories and practices developed within feminist theories and movements
prove to be extremely useful for addressing global environmental problems
Ecofeminism and global environmental politics

Ecofeminism provides concepts and theories useful for addressing GEP

Within the literature, practices and social movements that constitute ecofeminism we can
find issues and opened theoretical questions that are of utmost importance for addressing
many global environmental problems.
Hereafter some example of the answers, in brackets, given to tricky dilemmas:

• What ethics to underpin sustainability policies (utilitarianism is not that bad)

• How to solve the tragedy of commons (participatory democracy in a non patriarchal
society)
• Is the degrowth movements useful to promote sustainability? (no, it may worsen the
things indeed)
• Techno mania, technophobia and the precautionary principle (we cannot renounce
technology, but the precautionary principle applies)
• Equity and sustainability (the dimension of equity is not a complement, it is the first
one and a necessary condition for achieving the other two)
• Human rights and/or nature rights? Anthropocentrism vs ecocentrism (the real danger
is androcentrism)
• Environment, tradition and modernity (modernity is the solution, enriched with a
critical interculturalism)
The next 11 slides are quotations from: What is Ecofeminism?
by Alicia H. Puleo. Philosopher
Quaderns de la Mediterrània 25, 2017: 27-34

A seminal contribution to understand the

theoretical roots of ecofeminism is the book:
Merchant, C., The Death of Nature: Woman,
Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution, San
Francisco, Harper and Row, 1981.
What is Ecofeminism? (Puleo, 2017)

After years of reading and reflection on feminist and ecologist

theory, I have shaped a proposal that I have called critical
ecofeminism (Puleo, 2011).

It is the result of my search for an ecofeminist theory that can

elude the dangers that renouncing the legacy of Modernity entails
for women.

It is clear that all ecofeminisms are “critical” insofar as they criticise

the current system but I have chosen this adjective as a reference
to the commitment to fulfilling the promises of liberty, equality and
solidarity of the Enlightenment and their relation with the new
millennium challenges.
The development process of Modernity has ambiguities and multiple
sides and not all of them are desirable. The principles and convictions
of liberty and equality have been accompanied with new forms of
oppression and exploitation.

However, it can be argued that the criticism of prejudice and the idea of
equality of all human beings have been decisive in the unstoppable
emergence of numerous emancipation movements and inevitably in the
emergence of women’s demands.

In its techno-scientific side, modern rationality has brought us great

levels of welfare but, at present, we are discovering that it has also
brought about a hitherto unseen destruction of the fabric of life that
sustains us, as well as threats to the global ecosystem unsuspected until
quite recently (Riechmann, 2016).
 The risk that ecofeminism ends up to reinforce conservative
views of women’s role in society

It is important to remember that the text in which for the first time the term
ecofeminism was used was an article by Françoise d’Eaubonne published in 1974
that argued that the overpopulation of the planet, an issue of concern for
ecologists, was the result of the patriarchal refusal of women’s right to decide on
their own bodies.

This idea has been weakened in later ecofeminist developments. Theoreticians

such as María Mies (1998) even reject any technological resource as they
consider it an element of domination of capitalist patriarchy. They thus return
to the image of women defined by their role as mothers.

Moreover, some forms of environmentalism are currently promoting an

essentialist and antifeminist discourse that will probably reactivate women’s
justified fear of environmentalism. On behalf of a supposed feminine nature, they
call on women to give up their studies and paid work and return exclusively to
taking care of children.
 A possible definition of Ecofeminism:
an attempt to outline a new utopian horizon, addressing the
environmental issue from the categories of patriarchy,
androcentrism, care, sexism and gender.

I am not calling for a return to an idealised natural past or to put

blind faith in science and technology. (Puleo, 2017)

Critical ecofeminism is not technophobic or technomaniacal.

It will require the effective fulfilment of the precautionary

principle adopted by the European Union in 2002 and currently
threatened by the signing of international free trade treaties such
as CETA.
An easy way to explain ecofeminism is to define it
as a meeting between feminism and ecology. (Puleo,
2017)

It was believed that all forms of ecofeminist thought

identified women with nature and that they were a
kind of biologism.

However, the terms “women” and “ecology” are not

synonyms.

Being ecofeminist does not imply that women are

innately more linked to nature and life than men.
For an ecofeminism of materialist foundations, the
problem of the technoscientific modifications of nature
does not lie in the alteration of a sacred order but in the
rudimentary and coarse character of current human
intervention in complex systemic adaptations with a past of
millions of years.

Faced with the advance of what we can call “technomania”,

a blind faith in technology as a magical solution for
everything, we must clearly understand that technology
cannot be a new idol before which we prostrate ourselves,
renouncing critical thought. (Puleo, 2017)
We must attain the self-awareness of belonging to the fabric of the
multiple and multiform life of the planet where we live. We must
understand that its destruction is, in the mid or long term, ours.

The technology that creates problems instead of solving them, that

seeks to take possession of nature to turn it into a slave and a mere
object to be bought and sold, is hybris, irrational excess, the worst of
the defects for classical antiquity thinkers.

No known culture is perfect, but all can improve with intercultural

learning

But also cultural traditions cannot be a new idol before which we

prostrate ourselves, renouncing critical thought.
The aim instead is to construct an ecological culture of equality
together rather than to revere any custom just because it is part of
the cultural tradition, ours or other’s. All cultures have been and are
unfair to women and non-human animals
 Interculturalism is deeply different from
Multiculturalism

Faced with an extreme multiculturalism that beatifies any

practice provided it is rooted in tradition, intercultural
learning enables us to compare, criticise and criticise
ourselves. We must learn from sustainable cultures as an
opportune corrective to our suicidal civilisation but without
falling into sanctimonious admiration.

The minimal comparison criteria I propose for the mutual

intercultural assistance of ecofeminism are sustainability,
human rights, with special attention to women’s rights as
they are the most ignored across cultures, and the “fair”
treatment of animals. (Puleo, 2017)
But criticism of gender identities is also necessary if we want a
profound ethical political transformation that goes beyond rational
management of resources.

It will be necessary to reveal the androcentrism that makes the male

(andros) the measure of all values.

Androcentrism is a key concept to understand the ideology of

dominion.

The androcentric slant of culture comes from the extreme historical

bipolarisation of the social roles of women and men.
In the patriarchal organisation, the harshness and lack of empathy
of the warrior and the hunter became the most valued while the
attitudes of affection and compassion related to the daily tasks of
caring for life were exclusively assigned to women and strongly
underestimated.

In the modern capitalist world, under the insatiable search for

money and the omnipresent discourse of competitiveness, the old
desire for patriarchal power beats on.

Hence a critical approach to gender stereotypes is also

necessary to achieve a culture of sustainability.
Praising the virtues of care without the
praise for a critical approach that
condemns power relations finally ends
in a sweetened and inane discourse.

The universalisation of ecological and

post-gender ethics of care is a pending
issue in daily life. (Puleo, 2017)
Gender stereotypes, feminism and environment
What is feminism?

• The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of

the sexes

• The belief that women should be allowed the same rights,

power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same
way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state.

• Feminism is a range of social movements, political

movements, and ideologies that aim to define and establish
the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the
sexes.
 the Global Gender Gap Index

This measure was introduced by the World Economic

Forum in 2006 and has been published yearly since. The
index is based on the level of female disadvantage (so it
is not strictly a measure of equality), and is intended to
allow comparative comparison of gender gap across
different countries and years.

The report examines four critical areas of inequality

between men and women in approximately 130
economies around the globe, focusing on economic
participation and opportunity, educational attainment,
political empowerment and health and survival
statistics.[10]
 What is feminism?

Hereafter a more suitable and

useful definition
 Feminism is the fight against patriarchy
What is patriarchy? Is a social organization based upon violence and
exploitation. it relies on cultural norms that codify “inferior” female
features and attitudes opposed to “superior” male features and
attitudes; in other words it relies on the establishment and defense of
strict gender stereotypes.

Note that not only women in society are given less status and rights
because of their female characters, but in general every thing or person
on which the system performs some form of power-over is
characterized/defined as feminine.

Gender stereotypes legitimate all forms of power exercised by “male-

part” of society on the “female-part”.
The codification of gender stereotypes is a means by which legitimaze
power of one part of society.
 Gender stereotypes

We call them stereotypes because they do not reflect real

(natural, biological, innate) features characterizing the two
sexes, but instead they are cultural norms which existence
only serves to reproduce power relationships within
patriarchal organizations.
 The following picture is fake; it is the
effect of a process of brainwashing
which begins as soon as we, as girls and
boys, open our eyes to the life
Patriarchy Oppresses Everyone – But In A
Graded Hierarchy

Patriarchy is a graded system of hierarchies of

one class over another, one caste over another,
one religion over another, one language group
over another, one sexuality over another, one
ability over another and so on and on till you have
a massive pyramid with many layers of
oppression.

Those at the top of the pyramid (upper caste,

male, cisnormative, heternormative, able, etc.)
have the most power and control over resources,
and those at the bottom have the least.
Patriarchy is based on the idea of hegemonic
masculinity

Hegemonic masculinity refers to the idea of

promoting particular representations of, for example,
stereotypical masculine behaviors and values.

Under the structures of hegemonic masculinity, both

women and men are subordinated, especially gay men
and people in marginalized social groups.

In Western contexts, the masculinity taking primacy

could involve attributes like being competitive or
being the breadwinner, or physical characteristics
such as having a deep voice or appearing strong and
fit.
Gerda Lerner's Analysis of Patriarchy

Gerda Lerner's 1986 history classic book, The Creation of

Patriarchy, traces the development of the patriarchy to the
second millennium B.C.E. in the middle east, putting gender
relations at the center of the story of civilization's history. She
argues that before this development, male dominance was not a
feature of human society in general.

Part of her theory is carried through into another volume, The

Creation of Feminist Consciousness, where she argues that
women were not conscious that they were subordinate (and it
might be otherwise) until this consciousness began slowly to
emerge, starting with medieval Europe.
Feminists fight:

• Inequalities
• Dominance hierarchy (i.e. a type of social hierarchy that arises when
members of a social group interact, to create a ranking system)
• Systems of exploitation
• Violence

Feminism is the fight not only for women's’ rights, but for human rights
and civilization.

When associated with environmentalism and ecologism, it becomes the

fight for of human species survival and sustainable development.

We do not need to be women to be feminists, we only need to be clever

human beings (whatever our sex/gender)
Feminist economics: how feminist lens
help uncover limits of the standard
model
 Nelson, 2005:
The Contemporary Definition of Economics
Gender stereotypes and dualistic thinking
Methods
rigorous intuitive
precise vague
mathematical verbal
general particular
elegant messy
Key Assumptions
autonomous dependent
self-interested other-interested
rational emotional
makes choices acts by instinct
has preferences has needs
Associations
masculine feminine
men women
mind body
human animal
cultured primitive 32
 Beyond Dualistic Thinking

M+ F+
F+

Precise rich
rich

elegant realistic
realistic

M- F-
F-

Unrealistic imprecise
imprecise

thin vague
vague

33
Autonomy is not a fact of human existence, but rather a mythical construct
that is coherent with distinctly masculine-biased world views. Theologian
Catherine Keller (1986), Keller argues that in Western culture individuality
has been stressed for men to the point where it takes on the perverse and
extreme form of a mythical ability to live without any dependence on
others. She calls this the image of the “separative” self. On the other
hand, relatedness has been stressed for women, to the point where
women have been rewarded for trying to let our own
identities dissolve in marriage and family. Keller calls this the “soluble”
self.

M+ F+

individual related

M- F-

separative soluble
34
The uncovering of the flawed assumption on social actors of the
standard model and of the dualistic thinking stemming from the
endorsement of gender stereotypes is very important when addressing
global environmental problems.

Both the separative and the soluble self prevent us from

considering our relationship with nature and others in a
way useful to promote a sustainable development.

When we consider the mutual interdependence among individuals

that needed in order to maintain the life, the caring sector and its
contribution to economic wellbeing becomes clear. When we consider
the mutual interdependence between our activities and the natural
environment, it is clear that since the natural environment provides us
with natural resources and ecoservices we have interest in preserving
the natural environment.
 An important contribution for
reforming economics and economies
from a feminist standpoint:

EISLER: THE REAL WHEALTH

OF NATIONS

36
One of the most important obstacle to a true sustainable development is the
way in which we measure economic growth and socio-economic development,
that is through the GDP (gross domestic product). The Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA) gives a clear definition for GDP: Gross domestic product (GDP) is the value of the
goods and services produced by the nation’s economy less the value of the goods and
services used up in production. GDP is also equal to the sum of personal consumption
expenditures, gross private domestic investment, net exports of goods and services, and
government consumption expenditures and gross investment.

The growth of the monetary value of all goods and services produced by the
economic system is considered as the main indicator of our wellbeing and
development.

Over the last 30 years many proposals have been made in order to enrich this
indicator.
For example New Zealand has become the first nation to officially incorporate
measures of well-being on the government ledger, including educational,
environmental, and health indicators. The traditional indicator of wealth, GDP, has
not been tossed out. It remains the predominant measure of the nation's income.
But, the Treasury Ministry is adding social dimensions to GDP to produce a
comprehensive well-being budget for 2019.
New economic approaches have flourished, such as the questionable
economics of happiness (which in my opinion is a mix of useless trivial
analysis, clichés and not viable, if not dangerous, imaginative intervention
proposals). Even more dangerous is the degrowth theory/movement which
entails many suggestions that are inconsistent with democracy and human
rights.

Anyway, none of them gives viable and equitable practical solution on how
to incorporate the multiform aspect of well being in the policy makers’
decision processes.

The following approach gives one of the most interesting

perspectives and consideration useful to overcome the limit of
the current economic development and social well being
representation.
 Reforming our economic systems: the simple recipe
of ‘caring economics’.

Caring economics is a term coined by Riane Eisler in her book “The

real wealth of nations” (2007, Berret-Koehler Publishers, San
Francisco).

The starting point of this book is that “we need a new economics”, ie.
an economic theory able to help building economic structures that meet
human needs. So far neither capitalism nor socialism have proven to
accomplish such a task. Eisler notices that the failure of both these
economic systems (and their supporting economic theories) is
explained by the fact that both have inherited and taken for
granted the domination system of patriarchal culture.

39
The concept of domination system has been characterized by Eisler in her
previous researches on cultural origins of current modes of human civilization.
In her book “The Chalice & the blade (1988, Harper-Collins),
Eisler re-examines human society, considering also prehistory, from a gender-
holistic perspective. She proposes that underlying the great surface diversity of
human culture are two basic models of society.

The first, which she calls dominator model, is what is popularly termed
either patriarchy or matriarchy, entailing the ranking of one half of humanity
over the other.

The second, the partnership model, is the one in which social relations
are primarily based on the principle of linking rather than ranking and
diversity (beginning with the most fundamental difference in our species,
between male and female) is not equated with either inferiority or
superiority. Based also on the work of Marijia Gimbutas, Eisler shows how
the domination system has replaced the partnership system from 8000-
6000B.C.E. leading to the lasting cultural paradigm of patriarchy.
40
The typical ‘Dominator’ economic assumptions are:

•The main motivations for work are fear of pain and scarcity.
•People cannot be trusted.
•Soft qualities and activities are inappropriate for social and
economic governance.
•Caring and caregiving are impediments to productivity, or at
best irrelevant to economics.
•Selfishness will lead to the great good of all.

41
Caring economics calls for a redefinition of economic indicators
and measure of welfare in a way as to take into account not only the
wealth produced in the market economy (as it is currently made) but
also the wealth produced in the other sectors of the economic
system, i.e.: unpaid community economy; household economy;
natural economy, government economy; illegal economy (which is
harmful).

In other terms caring economics stresses the object of economic

science should be the new economic map (see the figure below),
instead of the old economic map that does not comprehend caring
sectors and the nature.
42
43
 Seven steps towards a caring economics

1. Recognize how the cultural devaluation of caring and caregiving has negatively
affected economic theories, policies, and practices.
2. Support the shift from dominator to partnership cultural values and economic
and social structures.
3. Change economic indicators to give value to caring and caregiving.
4. Create economic inventions that support and reward caring and caregiving.
5. Expand the economic vocabulary to include caring, teach caring economics in
business and economic schools, and conduct gender-specific economic research.
6. Educate children and adults about the importance of caring and caregiving
7. Show government and business leaders the benefits of policies that support
caring and caregiving, and work for their adoption.

44
Economic policies should aim to integrate into economic
accounts the wealth produced by these sectors and to
reorient the system of value in society in such a way as
caring activities, on which actually depends the wealth of
people, could be given the right value.

The fundamental change to move towards a caring

economics is to substitute the current social and economic
relationships based on domination (which is the core trait
of patriarchy and capitalism, but also of “real” socialist
regimes) with relationships based on partnership and
cooperative behavior.

45
According to caring economics, the goal of economic theory (and of the
economists) should be: “Creating rules, policies, and structures that encourage
and support caring for ourselves, others, and nature”.

“Unlike houses, machines, and other material structures, businesses, governments,

and families are living structures. These structures aren’t held together by mortar or
screws and bolts. They’re held together by habits of thinking and acting and by the
stories and rules that mold these habits .

Shifting to an economic system that better meets human needs entails changes in
material structures, but ever more important are changes in our living structures: in
the patterns of interactions that form families, businesses, governments and other
social institutions. These patterns are largely determined by the laws, rules, and
beliefs that govern their construction. And these laws, rules and beliefs are very
different depending on the degree to which a society orients to the partnership or
domination end of the partnership-domination continuum.” (Eisler, 2008).

46
 Partnership and Domination system
Component Domination system Partnership system

1. Structure Authoritarian and inequitable social Democratic and economically

and economic structure of rigid equitable structure of linking and
hierarchies of domination hierarchies of actualization.

1. Relations High degree of fear, abuse, and Mutual respect and trust with low
violence, from child and wife beating degree of fear and violence, since they
to abuse by “superiors” in families, are not required to maintain rigid
workplaces, and society. rankings of domination.

1. Gender Ranking of male half of humanity over Equal valuing of male and female half
female half, as well as of traits and humanity , as well as high valuing of
activities viewed as ‘masculine’ over empathy, caring, caregiving, and non-
those viewed as ‘feminine’, such as violence in women, men, and social
caring and cerigiving. and economic policy.

1. Beliefs Beliefs and stories justify and idealize Beliefs and stories give high value to
domination and violence, which are empathic, mutually beneficial, and
presented as inevitable, moral, and caring relations, which are considered
desiderable. moral and desiderable.

47
 References
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of Neo-liberalism. Oxford University Press.
Kingfisher, C. (ed.) (2002). Western Welfare in decline: globalization and
women’s poverty. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press..
Lerner G.(1986) The creation of patriarchy. Oxford University Press
Sassen, S. (2007). A sociology of globalization, Norton & Company inc.
Stopler Gila (2006) A rank usurpation of power. The role of patriarchal religion
and culture in the subordination of women. Working paper.
Stopler, Gila (2005) Gender Construction and the Limits of Liberal Equality. Texas
Journal of Women and the Law (2005), 15: 43.
Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development, Cambridge University
Press.
Ostrom Elinor (2003) How types of goods and property rights jointly affect
collective action. Journal of theoretical politics. 15 (3) 239-270.
Pateman C (2002) Self-ownership and property in the person: democratization
and a tale of two concepts. The journal of political philosophy, 10, 1 20-53.
Pateman C. (1988) The sexual contract. Stanford university press.
Pateman C., Mills C. (2007) Contract and domination. Polity Press.

48
The precautionary principle

49
 The precautionary principle

According to the precautionary principle, when there is scientific

uncertainty with regard to the risk of the irreversible harm that a new
activity or product might entail for the environment or health, the
principle of prudence will prevail.

Thanks to the precautionary principle, it is not necessary to have conclusively

shown its harmful nature to take control and preventative measures. The burden
of proof falls on those who seek to introduce the new product or activity, not
those potentially affected. Faced with the aims of those who prioritise gains over
risks, the precautionary principle debate. proposes transparency and democratic
participation in the
 Ethics and social sciences

Economics assumes utilitarianism

Is it the only possible ethics useful for guiding policy makers’
decision processes?
 Ethics Theories- Utilitarianism Vs. Deontological Ethics
There are two major ethics theories that attempt to specify and justify moral rules
and principles: utilitarianism and deontological ethics.

Utilitarianism (also called consequentialism) is a moral theory developed and

refined in the modern world in the writings of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). There are several varieties of utilitarianism. But
basically, a utilitarian approach to morality implies that no moral act (e.g., an act of
stealing) or rule (e.g., “Keep your promises”) is intrinsically right or wrong. Rather,
the rightness or wrongness of an act or rule is solely a matter of the overall
nonmoral good (e.g., pleasure, happiness, health, knowledge, or satisfaction of
individual desire) produced in the consequences of doing that act or following that
rule. In sum, according to utilitarianism, morality is a matter of the nonmoral good
produced that results from moral actions and rules, and moral duty is
instrumental, not intrinsic. Morality is a means to some other end; it is in no way
an end in itself.
Deontological ethics is in keeping with Scripture, natural moral law,
and intuitions from common sense. The word “deontological” comes
from the Greek word deon which means “binding duty.”

Immanuel Kant, a famous deontologist, is considered to have

formulated modern deontological ethics, which stresses on the fact
that the morality of a person is dependent on how well he fulfills his
duties and obligations.

Deontological ethics has at least three important features. First, duty

should be done for duty’s sake. The rightness or wrongness of an act
or rule is, at least in part, a matter of the intrinsic moral features of
that kind of act or rule. For example, acts of lying, promise breaking,
or murder are intrinsically wrong and we have a duty not to do these
things.
Virtue Ethics

It is different from both the above concepts (utilitarianism and

deontology) as it concentrates completely on virtues and ideals. It
does not consider following the set laws when performing an action,
nor does it consider the action results. What it considers is the ideals
and values you have followed that have resulted in the best possible
action. There have been many criticisms of virtue ethics due to the
absence of a rational experience.
 Consequentialism (utilitarianism)

1.Plain
It states that the morally right action is the one with
the best consequence.
2.Dual
It states that the action with the best consequence is
objectively and morally right.
3.Reasonable
It states that an action is morally right if and only if it
has the best consequence.
4.Rule
It states that an action is morally right if and only if it
does not violate the set rules.
5.Hedonistic
It states that the best action is the one that has the
most pleasurable consequence.
 Deontology

1.Contractarian Ethics
It states that moral acts and rules hold true for a
person depending on how much he follows
them.
2.Natural Rights Theory
It states that every individual has universal
natural rights, irrespective of any actions or
ethics.
3.Divine Rights Theory
It states that an action is right if and only if the
Divine Force has commanded it to be right.
4.Pluralistic Deontology
It states a list of prime duties to be considered
prior to deciding which duty should be
performed when.
 Virtue Ethics

1.The Ethics of Care

The theory states the differential
views in the perception of virtue ethics
from the masculine and feminine point
of view.
2.Eudaimonism
It states that every action states some
good; no action is pointless.
3.Agent-Based Version
It states that actions are evaluated
based on the agent’s inner life.
Kopnina, H., Washington, H., Taylor, B. et al. Anthropocentrism: More than
Just a Misunderstood Problem. J Agric Environ Ethics 31, 109–127 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9711-1

Anthropocentrism, in its original connotation in environmental ethics, is the

belief that value is human-centred and that all other beings are means to
human ends. Environmentally -concerned authors have argued that
anthropocentrism is ethically wrong and at the root of ecological crises.
Some environmental ethicists argue, however, that critics of
anthropocentrism are misguided or even misanthropic. They contend: first
that criticism of anthropocentrism can be counterproductive and
misleading by failing to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate
human interests. Second, that humans differ greatly in their environmental
impacts, and consequently, addressing human inequalities should be a
precondition for environmental protection. Third, since ecosystems
constitute the “life-support system” for humans, anthropocentrism can and
should be a powerful motivation for environmental protection. Fourth,
human self-love is not only natural but helpful as a starting point for loving
others, including nonhumans
More on ethics
 The Central Question

Consequentialism and Deontology

The central question in both these cases
is, ‘What you ought to do?’ That is to say,
the question focuses what you should do,
rather than what you want to do, or
whether you should do what you feel like.
The essence is to do the task, according to
how right it is presumed to be.

Virtue Ethics
The central question is, ‘What kind of a
person should I be?’ Thus, virtue ethics do
not concentrate on the correctness of the
act, but the moral conduct of the agent
who is performing the act.
 What is Good and What is Right?

Consequentialism
Consequentialists state that maximum happiness achieved is what is good; the
actions that maximize this good are right. The focus is on getting what is good,
and getting what you want. It does not hold true if the two requirements are in
conflict.
Deontology
Deontologists state that the right action performed or the state of affairs
that led to the right action are good, while the fact that the action was
done in accordance with the set rules is right. The practical focus is to
determine what is rational―as per the rules and as per the correct
action.

Virtue Ethics
Those who revere virtue ethics state that whatever results in the betterment of
humanity is good; the fact that the virtuous person followed his ideals to achieve
the same is right.