SYLVAN
He seems to be arguing against leopold that all that is needed is an extension of humanethics to
includenature. he says this won't work because natural objects are not moral objects in the way that
humans are moral objects. sylvan begins by granting the claim of “environmental ethics” - that it is
wrong, intrinsically, to despoil the environment.
1. to speak of a “new ethic” presumes that there alreaady is some monolithic “ethic” that can be
counterposed – instead aren't there “ethics”? (but clearly in some sense leopold is correct –
there is something monolithic about western ethics in that they operate from a common
background...)
2. types of ethics (passmore)
2.1. dominant ethical tradition – nature is the dominion, property, of man and we are free to
do with it as we please (INCONSISTENT with an environmental ethic)
2.2. despotic ethical tradition (INCONSISTENT with an ee)
2.3. stewardship ethical tradition (INCONSISTENT b/c still sees nature as a resource and
thus will violate an ee)
2.4. co-operative perfector of nature ethical tradition (INCONSISTENT...)
2.5. primitivism ??
2.6. romanticism/mysticism ?? (panpsychism?)
3. thus it appears that a NEW ethics is called for but wait! perhaps modifications of the above
positions will permit extension of ethics instead. let's see what we can come up with:
3.1. Modification of dominant position – perhaps by claiming unforeseen future
consequences of dominating activity, we can, in the end, line up ethical dominant behavior
with behavior permitted under an ee
4. Sylvan rejects this – nope it won't work... to just have a deeper, more sophisticated “enlightened
self-interest” approach
4.1. reminds the reader that “new ethic” is ambiguous. could mean one of various things:
a) new ethical system
b) new sort of specific ethics
c) new super-ethic that groups specific ethics under a set of propositions that list the values
and general judgments that tell us what is right and wrong; lawlike propositions or
PRINCIPLES
d) THUS if system S1 and S2 have different fundamental principles then they are two
different ethical systems... (so what? maybe S1 is a false system and S2 is true...) OK
and sylvann thinks it clear that ee is a new S3... or whatever...
4.2. Testing the hypothesis that ee is a new System: he's identify the core Ethical System
principles of the dominant-esque traditions and see if ee counter-examples can be overcome.
some rules for thought experiment – obligations should cover every ideal situation; what is
permissible should cover at least one ideal situation; what is wrong is excluded from every
ideal situation... (so presumption here is universalizabilty of any ee)
a) Core principle is the apc-harm-principle – humans first, all else is last when it comes to
ethics... there are problems with this however – what counts as “harm”? which persons –
future persons too? etc
b) LAST MAN – ok with apc-harm; violates ee – extends to last people?
c) LAST PEOPLE – reproduction is impossible so future generations is not an issue; and
this rules out science fiction cases of the last people going to a new planet and
destroying it ???; proviso added that no willful destruction of environment? still won't
work – still will violate ee but not apc-harm... - extends to industrial society?
d) GREAT ENTREPRENEUR/INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY e) VANISHING SPECIES
4.3. so maybe scrap the apc-harm principle and instead just create a list of rights, etc?
he shows this won't work by first identifying what he takes to be the central core ethical, “super
principle” of apc - “the harm principle” and then test with environmetnal counter examples. if the
counter examples succeed this shows that the core principle is inadequate and thus a new ethic, not an
extension, is needed. so he starts with the last man, then last people, then industrial people...
check htis!!
These are two very diverse initial glosses at what environmental ethics (or as Leopold puts it, a "land
ethic") should look like. Sorry to group them together but we have to move forward. I'd suggest
commenting on one or the other. For those looking at Leopold: Is his "new" theory of ecology (new in
the 1940s) still helpful for us today? And what about his theory of moral progress? Is it persuasive as
a basis for his account for how a land ethic is an evolutionary possibility? Once we settle issues of
human to human prejudice is the environment the next "natural" step?
For those looking at Sylan, there is a lot here but the reason the article is still read is the last man
example. How do we respond to the last man? If there was one person left on Earth, what would be
morally wrong with destroying all life on Earth without appealing to the intrinsic value of nature? If
we object to the last man is there no other answer to what he has done than an appeal to the
nonanthropocentric intrinsic value of nature?