Philosophy, Environment and

Development: Exploring the Nexus

 Meaning of environment
• The environment encompasses all living and
non-living things in the world. The term is
often applied to the Earth or some planets of
Earth.

• Environment encompasses the interaction of

all living species, climate, weather and natural
resources that affect human survival and
economic activity
 Meaning of environment (Cont.)

• The surroundings or conditions in which a

person, animal, or plants operates

• It is called the natural world as a whole

 Meaning of environment (cont.)

• The environment also known as the ecosystem

is a natural unit consisting of all plant, animals
and micro-organisms (bio factors) in an area
functioning together with all of non-living
phsical (abiotic) factors of the environment
 Meaning of environment (cont.)

• The human environment- also known a built environment

as to explain the human distortion of the natural flow of
things in the natural world
• The natural environment also known as wilderness is often
used in contrast with the built environment are where
humans have fundamentally transformed landscapes such
as urban setting and agricultural land conversion, the
natural environment is greatly changed into a simplified
human environment
• The physical environment
 Understanding the environment
• The environment is understood in two major dimensions:
• (1)
• The human environment
• The natural environment
• The physical environment
• (2)
• Biosphere
• Lithosphere
• Atmosphere
• Hdyrosphere
• Biosphere- to mean all living things, plants,
animals, organisms
• Lithosphere- the earth crust, the soil and
everything with in including the Iceland
• Atmosphere- used to connote the air and the
things in it
• Hydrosphere- often used to mean the water
bodies including oceans, lakes, rivers, streams,
wells, etc.
Philosophy interest in the environment
• Environmental ethics:
• A branch of applied philosophy that studies
the conceptual foundations of environmental
values as well as more concrete issues
surrounding societal attitudes, actions and
policies to protect and sustain biodiversity and
ecological systems
 Environmental philosophy?
• Environmental Philosophy is the study of the
concepts and principles, relating to human
interactions with nature and the natural
environment, to related presuppositions
about the relation of humanity and nature,
and to practical implications for both
individuals and societies.
 Philosophy and development
• Philosophy asks questions regarding
development
• To want extent can we use resources in our
natural environment to meet human needs
without jeopardizing the interest of future
generations
• Such questions about development led
humanity to take “sustainable development”
serious
What then is sustainable development?
• Sustainable development implies the
enhancement of the well-being of all peoples
always by providing a world fit for human
habitation.
• Sustainable development is a holistic
philosophy that harmonises and integrates the
activities of economic, socio-political and
ecological systems
 Areas of environmental ethics
• animal ethics,
• life-centered ethics,
• ecological ethics,
• wilderness ethics,
• food ethics
Importance of environmental philosophy

• Environmental philosophy gives an invaluable

lens into the issues of overpopulation by
deconstructing complex dynamics within
society. By spreading ideas within
environmental philosophy to all different
corners of the globe then everyone will have a
chance to learn how to live rightly in the
world.
Some views of environmental philosophy

Topics and approaches within the field include:

• conservation and restoration,
• environmental justice and environmental racism,
• ecofeminism,
• climate change,
• green political theory,
• the ethics of technology, and
• environmental activism
Major views on environmental philosophy

Environmental philosophy is a big concept, the

entry aims to give a basic but inclusive
introduction to different influential environmental
philosophy theories.
Zimmerman (1998) divides environmental
philosophy into three categories:
1. anthropocentric reformism,
2. environmental ethics, and
3. radical ecology.
The real question in environmental ethics:
• Suppose that Walt Disney was going to build a ski resort in a
wildness area adjacent to a national park, which could produce
revenues of millions of dollars and provide hundreds of jobs. Is it
acceptable for the government to approve this project at the risk
of harming the natural environment? When scientists do animal
tests to research new medicine, is it justifiable for animal
protectors to rescue them from laboratories? If humans have to
choose between killing animals or burning plants for their own
survival, should they choose to destroy plants, as animals are
viewed as superior to plants? What are the rationale underlying
environmental protection activities, for the well-being of this
generation, the sustenance of our descendants, and other
reasons?
• Exploration of answers to these questions falls
into the sphere of environmental philosophy.
Environmental philosophy is the discipline in
philosophy that studies the moral relationship
between human beings and nature, as well as
the value and moral status of the environment
and its non-human contents
• The history of environmental philosophy is
characterised by controversies concerning
issues such as global warming, biodiversity,
and sustainability. These controversial cases
stemming from concrete situations for how
we relate to the Earth.
 Environmental ethics?
• Environmental ethics focuses on the moral status
of and relationship between humans and nature.
• Ethics is a branch of philosophy, so
environmental philosophy is a broader concept
that covers environmental ethics. Philosophy
insists that we do not remain at the level of
normative ethics’ and resolving controversies
requires us to ‘examine the values in conflict and
the competing factors that underlie the value
 Environmental philosophy
Zimmerman (1998) divides environmental philosophy into
three categories:
1. anthropocentric reformism,
2. environmental ethics, and
3. radical ecology
This entry will introduce environmental philosophy with
reference to this structure.

These theories are helpful to improve environmental education

as they give different explanations on how human beings
should handle their relationship with nature.
 Evolution of environmental philosophy
• Western culture
• teachings of Saint Francis of Assisi,
• literature works of romanticism poets and
• transcendentalists, such as Wordsworth and
Thoreau, and
• conservation movements led by Theodore
Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot
 Contributing factors to the emergence of environmental
philosophy

• the 1960s is the critical period for the field to

develop as it saw ‘the rapid growth of
information concerning a diverse array of
environmental ethics, including
overpopulation and its relation to poverty and
famine, the depletion of non-renewable
resources, and the harmful effects to human
and non-human by chemical pollutants
Contributing factors to the emergence of environmental philosophy

• The Great Smog of 1952 in London and the

Japan minamata disease in 1956 also evoked
public environmental-protection
consciousness. All these environmental
problems prompted human beings to reflect
on the relationship between human beings
and nature.
• In the 1960s, groundbreaking academic works were
published, influential environmental movements were
organised, and some policy reforms started taking place.
Rachel Carson’s best-selling book Silent Spring was published
in 1962, and Lynn White’s article The Historical Root of Our
Ecological Crisis was published in 1967. Numerous NGOs, like
Sierra Club, which sued Disney for intending to build an
entertainment resort in wilderness, were established and
supported by citizens. Governments were forced to develop
legislation to respond to environmental issues, such as, for
example, the UK passing Clean Air Act in 1956 as a reaction to
the Great Smog.
 Core disputes
• De Laplante (2006) summarizes two major sets of questions
that divide the academic community on the subject of
environmental philosophy:
• (1) Do human beings have moral obligations to protect or
preserve the natural environment? If so, what are they, and to
whom, or what, are they owned? How are such obligations
justified?
•
• (2) What are the root causes of contemporary attitudes and
practices with respect to the natural environment, and how can
we change them?
•
• Important distinction between
anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric
approaches to ground the moral obligations
towards the environment.

• Radical ecology
• At the heart of the first set of questions lies the debate about whether
nature has ‘instrumental value’ or ‘intrinsic value.’ ‘Instrumental value’
means that the existence of the environment is only for human beings’
interests. On the contrary, ‘intrinsic value’ refers to how the environment
ought to be regarded as worthy of respect rather than merely useful. Those
who support the intrinsic-value argument hold that humans do not have
the right to define the value inherently existing in natural objects. The
environment has value beyond satisfying human aims. This debate is
important, because things of intrinsic value deserve moral concern. For
instance, although people in persistent vegetative states cannot speak or
move, as long as we recognise they have intrinsic value, they still should be
treated with moral concern. The intrinsic value associated with life forms
the foundation of an environmental ethic, enabling us to recognise nature’s
moral importance. Whether the environment has intrinsic value or not
determines the way human beings act.
 Anthropocentric Reformism

• Early anthropocentrism
• Modern anthropocentirsm
• American environmental philosophers Borton
and botanist Murdy
• Strong anthropocentrism and weak
anthropocentrism, based on ‘felt preference’
and ‘considered preference.’
• anthropocentrism is justifiable because human
beings have a special place in nature
 Environmental ethics
• Environmental Ethics is ultimately about
extending moral consideration. When certain
objects have intrinsic value, they should be
treated with respect for their own sake and
their rights should not be overridden without
reason. Animal rights advocates strive to
extend moral status to animals, bio-centrists
to some or the whole biological system, and
eco-centrists to the whole ecosystem
 Environmental ethics
• On animal ethics:
• Peter Singer- animal liberation- Liberation
movements- utilitarianism
• Tom Regan- criticizes utilitarianism, because
maximum happiness may only benefit
someone at the expense of pain of others.
Everyone is the experiencing subject of life
and thus has intrinsic value
 Biocentrism
• Biocentrism is founded on Darwin’s theories
• Biocentrism presumes that we should include all
individual living entities in our moral considerations.
Biocentrists hold that all living things have an instinct
to survive and keep wholeness of life (Sarkar, 2012).
Taylor, a representative scholar of biocentrism, insists
on ‘life-principle.’ All living objects have the desire to
survive, so those with life deserves moral concern.
Taylor (1981) holds that humans do not have
responsibilities towards rivers as those we have toward
fish and plants
 Ecocentrism
• Ecocentrism originates from Aldo Leopold’s land ethics.
• Eco-centrism goes further to defend the interests of non-biological
objects such as rocks, mountains and rivers in the sphere (Sarkar,
2012). Eco-centrists emphasize the interconnection among
different natural elements. They maintain that the value of
different eco-elements is granted by nature, not humans. A major
representative of eco-centrism is Aldo Leopold. In his book A Sand
County Almanac, Leopold (2001) holds that land is not the property
of human. Rather, it is a community including soils, waters, plants,
and animals. Another influential philosopher is Holmes Rolston
(1988) who develops Land Ethics into a system. He believes all
animate lives interact, so any species that exists in the evolving
history is an important part of a generic lineage.
 Radical ecology
• includes deep ecology, social ecology, and ecofeminism
• In 1972, Naess coined the terms ‘deep ecology’ and ‘shallow ecology’ to
juxtapose what he regarded as two opposing approaches for problematizing
and responding to the ecological crisis. The objective of the shallow ecology
movement is only to fight against pollution and resource depletion. But
deep ecology supports biospherical egalitarianism and defends local
autonomy and decentralization (Naess, 1973). Deep ecology seeks to
recognise the underlying and co-evolving causes of ecocultural
unsustainability, while shallow ecology demand more modest reforms.
Shallow education treats the symptoms of ecocultural unsustainability, but
leaves the underlying causal structure unchanged (Glasser, 2011). Naess’s
work characterizes deep ecology as an international, grassroots social and
political movement. He believes that human should go beyond their ‘ego’
and ‘self’ in society to form an ‘ecological self.’ The ultimate aim of
environmental protection is for humans’ self-actualisation.
 Social ecology
• Social ecologists explore hierarchy and domination in culture, and
ecofeminists criticize the patriarchy in these hierarchies (Kheel,
1991). Spretnak (1990) maintains that culture is both the problem
and the solution, both the curse and the hope. Bookchin (2007),
the founder of social ecology, holds that ecological problems stem
from social problems. The fundamental reason is the anti-ecological
tendency in social economy, politics and culture. Tackling all these
problems must depend on social movements. The capitalist system
is immoral for it develops at all costs. Warren (1990), an influential
ecofeminist, points out that there are historical, symbolic and
theoretical connections between the domination of women and
the domination of nature. Women and nature give birth to and take
care of lives, but both of them suffer from oppression.
 Ecofeminism
• Ecofeminists believe there is a conceptual framework behind
that. Ecofeminism holds that the dynamics behind the
dominance of male over female are the key to
comprehending every expression of patriarchal culture with
its hierarchical, militaristic, mechanistic, and industrialist
forms. ‘A feminist ethics must be anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-
classist, anti-naturist and opposed to any "ism" which
presupposes or advances a logic of domination’. They
advocate that women should play an important role in
environmental movements because in this way they are
fighting against the very root leading to oppression of nature
and women.