1
Biocentrism and
Conservationism
Conservationism: Merv Wilkinson and Wildwood Forest.
Harvesting the forest so there is more than enough, preservation
of diversity also!
Attitude of reverence and Schweitzer.
2
Biocentrism
 “the view that living things as such can benefit from and
be harmed by human actions…”
 Intrinsic value
 Do harm and benefit entail rights for such things?
 Opposes anthropocentrism!
 Is it possible or realistic to universalize reverence and
this perspective?
3
Christopher Stone
 A frightening or laughable proposal that trees, forests,
oceans, rivers and other natural objects have legal
rights?
 Historical precedence.
 Rights based on fact of being harmed by or benefited
from human action!
 Does not imply that they have equal rights, all the same
rights as humans have.
 Legally recognized worth and dignity.
4
Stone and common law
 Rivers, lakes and forests are rightless, void of rights.
 No way to challenge polluters except by reference to
property.
 System protects property rights of humans or their
economic interests.
 Yet, it makes sense to speak of legal damage to a natural
object. Why? COSTS OF DAMAGE!
5
Current Law
 Natural objects lack legal standing, unique damages to
them do not count and they are not the beneficiaries of
rewards.
 Against conservationism!
 Why these living things can have standing, if we wish to
grant standing:
 Like legal incompetents, they can makes claims in court.
 Rights = ability to make claims
 Guardianship
6
Towards Legal Standing
 Natural objects become a party to an injunctive
settlement, a beneficiary of monetary rewards from
recognized harm.
 Proposes trust fund instead of ending pollution.
 Allows us to cover homocentric costs among other things.
 A radical new conception of man’s relationship to nature.
The role of attitude and
consciousness
 How realistic is it to have such a radical change?
 Hegel and the will justifying private property.
 The absolute right of appropriation over all things!
 Curing the view that nature is a collection of useful
senseless objects! Will love do it?
 Against mastery, control, does this include “knowledge”?
7
8
The need for a new myth
 Freeing ourselves from our supportive illusions!
 Does this imply biocentric equality?
 A myth to fit our growing body of knowledge of
geophysics, biology and the cosmos!
 Is the modern outlook to blame? What is it?
 The separation between the normative and the natural,
facts and values.
 Anthropocentrism: natural things have no value
independent of our interests and values.
9
Paul Taylor
 An outlook! 4 assertions.
 How important are outlooks, ideologies and perspectives
in solving environmental problems?
 Related to Singer’s speciesism.
 Holism
 Teleological centers of life
10
Biocentric Egalitarianism
 IV: Rejection of human superiority.
 Is this a logically consistent position?
 Would it be overriding? That is, could it really replace the
existing and dominant perspective?
 Is the rejection itself anthropocentric?
 Dehumanization!
 Merv Wilkenson (p. 71) and the alternative.
11
Ecocentrism and Deep Ecology
 Ecocentrism: idea that ecosystem is the primary moral
concern.
 What is an ecosystem? Is it not a human concept to describe
the observation of the energy transfers we find in nature?
 It is not a relatively closed system. It is open, but has internal
and external components. See Wiki! An energy system, the sun.
 An ecosystem is a community of living organisms (plants,
animals and microbes) in conjunction with the nonliving
components of their environment (things like air, water and
mineral soil), interacting as a system.[2]
12
The Land Ethic: Leopold
 Extension of ethics is “actually a process in ecological
evolution.” 80
 An ethic: “a limitation on the freedom of action in the
struggle for existence.” 80
 Actually, a replacement of “original freedom for all
competition” by cooperative mechanisms, an ethical
content.
 Consistent?
 A brief history of ethics
The Land Ethic: An Evolutionary
Possibility
 He regards it as a ecological necessity.
 The single premise of all ethical systems: individual is
member of a community of interdependent parts.
 Really? Implies integration, but what about racism,
classism, inequality, discrimination, segregation?
 Land Ethic: simply enlarges the boundaries of the
community to include soil, water, plants and animals.
 Land Ethic cannot prevent existing uses of “natural
resources.” (81)
13
14
An Ethic of Respect
 Changes role for homo sapiens, from conqueror to plain
member
 The Judao-Christian Tradition: Land given to humans to
be fruitful and multiply
 State of current conservationism: encourages only
enlightened self-interest
 The modern farmer: anxious for quick success
 The profit motive?
15
The Land Ethic
 Starting point: a change in ethics to include obligations
to the land, to the ecosystem as a whole
 Problem is rooted in our attitudes and motives: loyalties,
convictions, mind frames
 The economic motive; problem is that most members of
the land community have no economic value
 What is this due to?
 Song birds, a good example; economic reason to valid
protection
16
The Land Ethic
 Hence, it opposes the economic valuation of members of
the biotic community in favor of a limit on our actions
based on inclusion into this community
 Preservationism– the view that certain species have a
right to exist and even thrive within reason
 Ecosystem “needs” these species (beech tree for soil
fertility) and hence we should preserve them
 Does need entail obligation?
17
Land Ethic
 The existing government forumula: relegate conservation
of such things and systems to government
 Parks, refuges, monuments
 The assumed lack of profit has been wrong
 Does this open the economic route?
 No disapproval of government trustee of land
 But goal is assigning more obligations to the private
landowner
18
Land Ethic
 Private property and landowners
 They show no sign of voluntarily using conservationism
 Lack of ethical obligations to the land, or only a personal
ethic
 No system of conservationism based on economic self
interest will include all elements of the land community
 False assumption: economic parts can function without the
non-economic ones
 Only visible remedy: an ethical obligation on part of private
landowners
19
Land Ethic: The Land Pyramid
 A description of dependency of life on the soil.
 Food chains, etc.
 Crucial aspect is that it is open and changeable but
knowing how ecology works is vital for knowing whether are
actions are good or not
 Some biota are relatively robust and resistant, Western
Europe, some are not, South America
 Changes do not necessarily divert the flower of energy
 In general, the more violent or rapid the change, the worse
20
Land Ethic
 Use of land and violence. How do we determine the
degree of violence?
 Formulating an ethic:
 ecological conscience and aim of land health
 Health as capacity for self-renewal
 p.88: keylog of the land ethic : “ quit thinking about decent
land use as solely an economic problem. Examine each
question in terms of what is ethically and aesthetically
right...”
 “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity,
stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong
when it tends otherwise.” 88
21
Williston’s interpretation
 a and b on page 90
 a) not interfering in such balanced systems to the degree
that damages the energy flow
 b) rectifying whatever damage to such systems our
actions have already produced by restoring them to
something resembling their pre-interference state
 Not prevented from changing them: feeding the Moose?
 Preservationism: maintaining integrity of ecosystems.
Preservation against destructive human activity.
 Applied to national parks, Banfff, example of elk and
wolves
22
Applying Land Ethic
 Is this case an instance of the violence of mere human
presence?
 Is human population such violence? Evolution!
23
Deep Ecology
 Some basics:
 A radical movement seeking change at a deep, fundamental
level
 Emerged out of plenty and prosperity, the higher or middle
class, the richest industrial societies
 Environmentalism as a privileged movement!
 The Concept: going deeper than ecology?
 Transcends limits of any particular science
 A philosophy, hence an attempt at an environmental
philosophy/ethic
24
Deep Ecology
 A movement, a social/political one follows from the
philosophy
 Sharing of some of the principles but not a uniform
movement
 Naess’ Ecosophy T! Implies individuality of such a
philosophy. Personal? Individuated, not homogeneous
 Attempt to formulate a wisdom not a knowledge or
science from the movement
25
Deep Ecology and Self Realization
 Which Self?
 Idea of broad, enlarged Self
 Based on principle of identification in a positive sense
 Inspired by Eastern thought--Buddhism
 Process of ever-widening “identification”
 A reply to alienation, social?
26
Deep Ecology and Identification
 Identification is spontaneous and the deeper it goes the
more the difference and separation of ego and alter
(other) dissolves
 Does not eliminate individual differences or conflicts
 Vital interests! Growing, flourishing, etc.
 Generates problems of priority
27
Identification
 Fellow feeling, empathy
 The Self is one, is in all things
 Higher level of unity or oneness
 Opposes alienation, which can engender hatred of self,
against self
 Non-reciprocal, does not impose obligations on the other
 The idea of Atman (yogi, enlightened one, etc)
 Western tradition-- Spinoza and acting out of the self
28
D.E. and Identification
 Process of further widening of Self through self-seeking,
knowing the self
 Results in understanding of how all things and beings are
interconnected, sharing in “Self.”
 Should increase action, activity for the purpose of
enlarging the self
 No need for altruism, but maturity
 Maturation as realization of potential, self-realization
 Voluntary simplicity and joy
29
Widening of Self
 Widening and increasing perspectives, deepening
experiences, higher levels of activeness
 Opposes Kantian duty
 Acting out of identification of suffering!
 Suffering most potent source of identification
 Beautifying actions
 Romanticism and idea of “man apart”
30
Intrinsic Value and Flourishing
 Raising of consciousness, Rachel Carlson and her work
“Silent Spring.”
 Self awareness.
 More appreciation of non-industrialized cultures and
minorities, too much bordering on adulation?
 Criticism of progress in industrial society
 The call for intrinsic value related to these two
 Identification: Every living being has a right to life!
31
Deep Ecology and Attitude of Love
 Love as capable of creating restraints!