Contemporary Debates in Environmental Philosophy and Ecological Restoration
Buffalo State College – Spring 2010
A series of lectures presented by Justin Donhauser & Robert Earle
Free and open to the public.
Every Tuesday February 1st - March 22nd 2011 4:30-6:00 p.m. in
Butler Library 210
Course description:
This series consists of 8 weekly 1.5hr seminars on environmental philosophy and issues pertaining to ecosystem
restoration. Sessions will be co-taught by National Science Foundation (NSF) funded research fellows Justin
Donhauser (BSC alum) and Robert Earle from the University at Buffalo—guest speakers may be invited depending
on participants’ expressed interests. Seminars will be interactive and question driven; each seminar will be topically
oriented toward the interests expressed by participants at the first meeting. The topics listed below are tentative and
subject to revision—the topics listed for the audiences selection overlap and will be addressed in conjunction with the
general topics listed below.
* All readings are optional (for students who are not taking the course for 1 credit) and are not required or necessary
for comprehension of the content of the lectures. However, doing the key and/or suggested readings will enhance
your experience and knowledge of the relevant issue.
Key Readings are available via email and on ANGEL and the ERIE websites
Suggested texts:
Environmental Ethics: An Anthology eds. Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston III (Blackwell, 2003)
Higgs, E. S. (2003). Nature by Design: People, Natural Process, and Ecological Restoration. New York, MIT Press.
Lecture Schedule:
Week one February 1
Topic: Introduction to Critical Debates in Environmental Philosophy
Description:
General introduction to the lecture series including a note of welcome by Kimberly Blessing (BSC Philosophy
Department Chair). The lecturers will be introduced by University at Buffalo’s David Blersch, director of the E.R.I.E.
program (co-sponsor of the series). Robert and Justin will give an abridged history of the environmental philosophy
field, followed by an overview of key terms. The lecturers will also introduce the issues to be focused on in the series.
Participants will be given the opportunity to fill out topic cards, indicating their preferences for certain content
choices in the lecture series.
Relevant Literature:
1. Aldo Leopold’s “The Land Ethic” (on ANGEL and ERIE site)
Additional suggestions:
Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston III, “Introduction: Ethics and Environmental Ethics” (in suggested
text)
Clare Palmer, “An Overview of Environmental Ethics”. (in suggested text)
Week Two February 8
Topic: What is ‘naturalness’? Does Naturalness Matter?
Description:
Key for this discussion will be the so-called Elliot/Katz/Light debate surrounding the problem restoration
ecology presents regarding the value of ecosystem ‘naturalness’—whether ‘naturalness’ can possibly be achieved and
whether and the ways in which preserving or restoring ‘naturalness’ matters. Robert and Justin will address the
relevant issues in the manner that they come up in the literature in the sub-disciplines of philosophy they each
specialize in. This lecture will also include discussion of Robert’s and Justin’s personal involvement in two recent
ecological restoration projects in Western New York—we will see how these questions might be answered not just in
a local fashion but in a 21st century fashion.
Relevant Literature:
1. Eric Katz, “The Big Lie: Human Restoration of Nature” (on ANGEL and ERIE site)
2. Dufor & Piegay “From the Myth of a Lost Paradise” (on ANGEL and ERIE site)
3. Andrew Light, “Ecological Restoration and the Culture of Nature: A Pragmatic Perspective”
(on ANGEL and ERIE site)
4. Robert Elliot, “Faking Nature” (on ANGEL and ERIE site)
Week Three February 15
Topic: Is it Possible to Integrate our Distinctive Values?
Description:
Having outlined in weeks one and two the diverse goals and approaches to environmental ethics (for example
human-centered vs. nature-centered views of environmental value), the lecturers will present a discussion of
monism/pluralism and the recent trend towards environmental pragmatism. We will determine the extent to which
distinct environmental philosophies and valuations of nature might be integrated toward shared goals. Major
questions for consideration will be: Can there be legitimately (equally justifiable) conflicting views? (science vs. culture;
science vs. other science; etc.) How might we integrate conflicting views and values regarding the same natural
resources?
Relevant Literature:
1. Higgs “The Two Culture Problem” (on ANGEL and ERIE site)
2. B.G. Norton “Improving Ecological Communication” (on ANGEL and ERIE site)
3. Mark Sagoff “The View from Quincy Library or Civic Engagement in Environmental
Problem Solving” (on ANGEL and ERIE site)
Additional Suggestions:
B. G. Norton “Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism” (in suggested text)
Eugene Hargrove, “Weak Anthropocentric Intrinsic Value” (in suggested text)
Week Four February 22
Topic: Is Nature a Place?
Description:
This lecture will focus on the notion of nature as “wilderness,” the historic reference site for philosophic
literature on the environment. The focus on ‘nature as wilderness’ in ecosystem restoration and management and
environmental ethics has been challenged in recent years, by philosophers like William Cronon ed. Uncommon Ground,
environmental theorists like Eric Higgs, and critical theorists like John Bellamy Foster. Holmes Rolston effectively
communicates what hinges on understanding nature as a place apart from human dominated places (wilderness as
opposed to urbanized places, for instance) with the provocative phrase: ‘sometimes, it seems, we must decide whether
to feed people or save nature’. This lecture will focus on the question: Do these two deeply entrenched values
(human life/wellbeing and natural environmental integrity/sustainability) really conflict? We will consider whether
rejecting the conception of ‘nature as wilderness’ provides a tenable answer to this question.
* Margaret Wooster of Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper will join us to discuss a recent restoration project in West Seneca.
Relevant Literature:
1. Cronon, W. (1995). “The Trouble with Wilderness: or Getting Back to the Wrong
2. Nature” (on ANGEL and ERIE site)
3. Rider “The naturalness vs. wildness debate” (on ANGEL and ERIE site)
4. Holmes Rolston III, “Feeding People Versus Saving Nature” (on ANGEL and ERIE site)
5. B.G. Norton “Sense of Place Value” (on ANGEL and ERIE site)
Additional Sugestions:
Higgs, E. S. (2003). Nature by Design: People, Natural Process, and Ecological Restoration. New York, MIT Press.
-especially chapter three (p.93-130).
Robin Attfield “Saving Nature, Feeding People, and Ethics” (in suggested text)
John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff “What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About
Capitalism” (available online)
Week Five March 1
Topic: Sustainability and What we Owe the Future
Description:
In an era defined by our growing recognition of consumerism driven global climate change, we are all familiar
with the oft heard phrase “we owe it to our grandchildren.” Are you doing something wrong if your lifestyle
contributes to the suffering of spatially-temporally distinct people? Quantifying debts to the future, however, is a very
hard task. Derek Parfit, for instance, has shown that, given a utilitarian account of morality, we might be obliged to
maximize population growth. More generally, we might ask just how much we owe to future valuers (be they
humans, non-humans, or ecosystems). In this lecture, we will discuss the notion of sustainability in terms of our
moral obligations to the future. However, even the very phrase we began with- “we owe it to our grandchildren” has
been called into question by Bill McKibben in his 2008 book Eaarth, which demonstrates that, since global warming
has already changed our planet, we have to think about what we owe to the rest of the world right now.
* Rita Yelda from Frackaction (Buffalo chapter) will join us to discuss the threats hydrofracturing marcellus shale
poses in Western New York, and how our energy needs drive industrial “hydrofracking”.
Relevant Literature: TBA: these are some provisional suggestions
Brian Barry “Sustainability and Intergenerational Justice” (available as PDF)
Bill McKibben, Eaarth (Times Books, 2008)
Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons (OUP 1984). Especially part 4 (p. 351-419)
Avner de ‘Shalit, Why Posterity Matters: Environmental Policies and Future Generations (Routledge 1995)
Week Six March 8
Formal Paper Presentation by Robert Earle
Description:
Co-lecturer Robert Earle will present a chapter of his forthcoming dissertation Deep Intentionality in
Environmental Value, followed by a response by Justin Donhauser and then a general question and answer period. This
paper will involve many of the topics discussed previously in the lecture series, but will also be accessible as a standalone paper. The topic of this paper is the aesthetics of nature. Robert poses the question “What would be the
consequences for our conceptions of art and ecological restoration, if we were to think of ecological restoration in
artistic terms?” and then offers his account of ecological restoration as an aesthetically appreciable process.
* Unconfirmed guest speaker to discus urban agriculture.
Relevant Literature: TBA
Week Seven March 15
(tentative) Formal Paper Presentation by Justin Donhauser
Title: A Defense of Theoretical Ecology for Environmental Policy
Description:
Co-lecturer Justin Donhauser will present a paper, followed by a response by Robert Earle and then a general
question and answer period. This talk is a defense of science informed policy as it pertains to the US governments
position that the ‘ecosystem’ is the basic unit of environmental policy. Influential philosopher Mark Sagoff and
ecologists Kristin Shrader-Frechette & McCoy present several arguments that are supposed to show that general
(holistic) ecosystem theories and models cannot usefully inform environmental policies. Furthermore, they claim that
a natural-history oriented “case-study” approach to ecosystem study can usefully inform environmental policies. I
argue that the allegations that general theories and models are not useful for policy are rooted in misconceptions
regarding the intended role of models and their relation to theorizing and empirical evidence. I identify those
misconceptions, show how general models can be useful in policy formulation, and explain the advantages of
employing general models to in conjunction with case-study methods for purposes of policy formulation [as
ecologists actually do].
*Alternative 1: we may do a group exercise that involves trying to determine, which is the most reasonable metatheory of the ‘ecosystem’
*Alternative 2: I may give a talk on how restorationists commitments to particular meta-theories drives their
distinctive, and conflicting, approaches to ecosystem management
Relevant Literature:
1. Mark Sagoff “The Plaza and the Pendulum: Two Concepts of Ecological Science” (on
ANGEL and ERIE site)) (on ANGEL and ERIE site)
2. Schizas & Stamous “Beyond identity crisis” (on ANGEL and ERIE site)
2. Mark Sagoff “Ecosystem Design in Historical and Philosophical Context” (on ANGEL and
ERIE site)
Week Eight March 22
Topic: Should we, Can we, “Do No Harm”? (or Do harm!)
Description:
In this final lecture, we will discuss what is called the “precautionary principle.” We will consider the history
of “do no harm” as it related to environmental action and ask whether it is an apt model to follow in an era of
ecological crisis—in view of the fact that it is regularly appealed to in policy formulation and is a staple of
international law. Dean Bavington has argued that we often go too far in attempting to manage nature, calling for a
renewed sense of respect for nature in accordance with the precautionary principle. On the other end of the
spectrum, Eugene Hargrove offers a thoroughgoing critical analysis of the precautionary principle. Cass Sunstein
offers a, “middle way,” comprimissory defense of a variation of the precautionary principle. We will discuss these
analyses in relation to the question: “Should we, can we, “do no harm”?
Relevant Literature: TBA: these are some provisional suggestions
Dean Bavington, “The Aitrogenetic Effects of Environmental Management: Servicing an Unruly
Nature” (available online)
Eugene Hargrove, Foundations of Environmental Ethics (1989). Especially chapter 5 (p. 137-164)