Agricultural Ethics: A
Comparative Perspective
Kai-Yuan Cheng (鄭凱元)
Institute of Philosophy of Mind and
Cognition
National Yang-Ming University
（陽明大學）
2013.02.13
Outline
 I. Strength and Possible Weakness in Paul
Thompson’s Agrarian Version of
Environmental Ethics
 II. Zhuangzi’s Philosophy: The Nature of
Man and Nature
 III. Implementation of Thompsonian
Agrarianism in Taiwan (or beyond) through
the Supplementation of Zhuangzi’s
Philosophy
Environmental Philosophy
 “Environmental philosophy articulates and
defends basic principles for understanding
and addressing environmental issues. An
environmental philosophy is an explicit
statement of norms, values, and working
principles intended to guide our thinking
and practice with respect to the
preservation, utilization, and appreciation
of nature and for the conservation of
natural resources, as well as the addressing
of specific environmental problems such as
pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate
change.” (Thompson, 2010, p. 11-12)
Two Dogmas of Environmental
Philosophy
 The dogma of pristine nature:
unimproved nature has the highest
value
 An eco-centric view
 The dogma of environmental impact:
environmental ethics and policy should
focus on anticipated outcomes or
impacts of human actions on
environment
 An anthropocentric view
Drawback of the Dogma of Pristine
Nature: Unrealistic
 A significant percentage of land on planet Earth
is used for plant and animal production.
 The landmass used for agriculture:
 U.S.A.: 50% of; U.K.: 40%; Taiwan: 23%;
Chia-Yi: 39%; Yun-Lin: 63%; Chuan-Hua: 59%;
Taipei: 12% (Website of Directorate-General of
Budge, Accounting and Statistics of Executive
Yuan 行政院主計總處網站）
Impacts are inevitable. The real issue is how to
handle those impacts and maintain
environmental sustainability
Drawback of the Dogma of Environmental
Impact: Fact-Value Dichotomy
 “…the exclusive focus on outcomes or impacts has some
disturbing implications…[the dogma] makes it easy to
think of values as being wholly independent from facts.”
(Thompson, 2010, p. 25).
 It is one thing for scientists to find out the outcome of
certain ecosystem processes, and it is another thing for
economists and philosophers to evaluate the
appropriateness and inappropriateness of those
processes.
Agriculture is a form of human activity performed for the
purpose of food production. It seems to have some
intrinsic values. The challenge is how to articulate the
intuitive and compelling impression that agricultural
facts are inherently fused with value that go beyond
considerations of impacts, outcomes and trade-offs.
Disaster of the Two Dogmas
Combined
 “…combining the dogma of environmental impact with
the dogma of pristine nature creates a disastrous
environmental ethics for cultivated ecosystems (that
is, for agriculture). Agriculture by its very nature and
intention involves an impact on nature. However
ethical imperatives for land use are expressed, the
result of any call to limit the environmental impact
from agriculture means the less agriculture, the better.
However, if agriculture is to be minimized on a peracre basis, it must be practiced as intensively as
possible on those acres. This reasoning categorically
supports industrialized agriculture over organic or
low-input alternatives…” (Thompson, 2010, p. 25-26)
We need to find an alternative conceptual framework to
come up with a workable ethic of sustainability for
both our environment and agriculture.
Thompson’s Agrarianism
 Main Thesis:
i) Agriculture is key to sustainability that
lies at the core of environmental ethics.
ii) Agricultural form of life has an internal
dynamics to generate individual moral
characters and social goodness which not
only have intrinsic values of their own but
also lead to people’s affectionate
relationship with nature which they inhabit
in and interact with on a daily basis.
Thompson’s Agrarianism
“My contention in this book is that farms, farming
communities, and the agricultures that support entire
civilizations are excellent models for the complex kinds
of ecosocial hybrid systems that need to be sustained if
our society is to achieve sustainability at all” (Thompson,
2010, p. 11)
“An agrarian is more concerned with the way a local food
system embeds people in practices whereby their
commerce with nature and with one another creates an
enduring sense of place…The agrarian hope is that these
kinds of localized transactions will gradually develop into
an affection for the people and the places where one
lives, and that through the constant repetition of these
rhythms, this affection, this sympathy, will mature into
full-fledged habits of character—virtues if you will.
(Thompson, 2010, p. 39)
Thompsonian Agrarianiam Inspired
by Ancient Greek Philosophers
 “…philosophers such as Socrates and Plato must be
read in light of certain agrarian ideals that were the
foundations of life throughout Greeks city-states and
at Athens in particular…the Greek worldview
incorporates both nature and society into an
enveloping environment that aids or inhibits action in
a very selective way. Human goodness involves the
realization of potential that is latent in human
character, but the potential for this realization is not
wholly under any individual person’s control. One
develops virtues and vices as a result of how one’s
environment rewards or penalizes patterns of conduct
in a systematic way. There is, therefore, no good
person without a good environment. And for the
Greeks, a good environment was not a pristine
environment but a farm environment” (Thompson,
2010, p. 26-27; Hanson, 1995)
Thompsonian Agrarianiam Inspired
by Ancient Greek Philosophers
 “This type of thought places individuals within
concentric webs: family, community, and
nature. As described in Aristotle’s Politics,
those webs work as interacting hierarchies to
establish feedback loops ensuring that
individuals internalize the consequences of
their actions into habits of personal character.
One does not stand back from a potential
impact and wonder how to value it; rather, one
sees the whole organic situation as creating
more specific value commitments, which are
understood as virtues that integrate and
preserve the whole.” (Thompson, 2010, p. 27)
Thompsonian Agrarianiam Inspired
by Ancient Greek Poets

“The Greek poet Hensiod (circa 700 BCE) saw farming as
having a religious purpose, but the religious significance of
farming for Hesiod was rather different than it might be for
contemporary Christians, Muslims, or Jews. His Zeus was
one of several immanent gods, fully present in Hesiod’s
daily life. The depiction of Zeus in Hesiod’s poem Works and
Days is one of a god thoroughly integrated into nature and
the source of all natural unity. The seasons, soil, and water
are themselves divinities begotten by Zeus that establish a
place for human beings. A key message in Hesiod’s poetry
is that only farmers dependent on seasons, soil, and water
can hope to attain piety or show proper respect to these
divinities. Farming is the way human beings justly occupy a
place in the divine (that is, natural) order…Agriculture is
thus the singular practice by which humanity makes its way
in the world in a pious and morally just manner.”
(Thompson, 2010, p. 36-37)
Possible Inadequacies of
Thompson’s Agrarianism (1)
 i) Certain aspects of Greek philosophy that are favorable
to his agrarian position are highlighted, but some salient
aspects of Greek philosophy that may have some
internal tensions with this agrarian position are not
addressed, such as:
a) The dualistic view of human nature: a person is
composed of two distinct kinds of entity: body and soul
b) The atomistic view of nature: the universe is
particulate, reductive, material, inert, quantitative, and
mechanical
 Human beings are both essentially and ethically
segregated from nature in this Greek worldview (Callicott,
1987, p. 118).
 Human beings seek not unity with nature but conquest
in this Greek worldview (McHarg, 1969)
Possible Inadequacies of
Thompson’s Agrarianism (2)
 How are we to make sense of Hesiod’s idea
that Zeus—a sacred being—is thoroughly
integrated into nature? Is this idea a merely
metaphorical or poetic expression, or
something to be taken seriously—that it has
some real ontological import?
 If the former were the case, we would have
difficulty taking a sacred worldview seriously. If
the latter were the case, there would seem to
be a direct conflict between a sacred view of
nature expressed by Hesiod and a mechanistic
and atomistic view of nature popular among
ancient Greek philosophers.
The Judeo-Christian View of Man and
Nature: Congruent with Greek Philosophy
but Leads to Environmental Crisis









1. God—the locus of the holy or sacred—transcends nature.
2. Nature I a profane artifact of a divine, craftsman-like creator.
The essence of the natural world is informed matter: God divided
and ordered an inert, plastic material.
3. Man exclusively is created in the image of God and thus is
segregated, essentially, from the rest of nature.
4. Man is given dominion by God over nature.
5. God commands man to subdue nature and multiply himself.
6. The whole metaphysical structure of the Judeo-Christian world
view is political and hierarchical: God over Man, Man over Nature—
which results in a moral pecking order or power structure.
7. The image-of-God in Man is the ground of man’s intrinsic value.
Since nonhuman natural entities lack the divine image, they are
morally disenfranchised. They have, at best, instrumental value.
8. This notion is compounded in the latter Judeo-Christian tradition
by Aristotelian-Thomistic teleology—rational life is the telos of
nature and hence all the rest of nature exists as a means—a
support system—for rational men.
(Callicott, 1987; Lynn White, Science 1967)
Fundamental Questions in
Environmental Ethics
 1) What is the nature of nature?
 2) What is the nature of man?
 3) How should man relate to nature?
(Ip, 1983; Callicott, 1987)
Suitably answering these questions remains
critical for developing a substantial version
of Thompsonian agrarianism
Zhuangzi’s Philosophy: The Nature
of Man and Nature
Understanding the nature of nature is inseparable from
understanding the nature of man.
The nature of man can be viewed from three angles:
a) Body
b) Person (psychological relation R: Parfit)
c) Self
Details of my reading Zhuangzi on the above issues:
Cheng (forthcoming): “Self and the Dream of the
Butterfly in the Zhuangzi”, Philosophy East and West
--- (draft): “Personal Identity and Survival in the
Zhuangzi”
Body: Transformation of ki (氣) in
the universe
 But I looked back to her beginning and the time
before she was born. Not only the time before she
was born, but the time before she had a body. Not
only the time before she had a body, but the time
before she had a ki. In the midst of the jumble of
wonder and mystery a change took place and she had
a ki. Another change and she had a body. Another
change and she was born. Now there’s been another
change and she’s dead. It’s just like the progression
of the four seasons, spring, summer, fall, and winter.
Now she’s going to lie down peacefully in a vast room.
(tr. Watson, 1968)
 莊子曰：「不然。是其始死也，我獨何能旡概然！察其始而本
旡生，非徒旡生也，而本旡形﹔非徙旡形也，而本旡氣。雜乎
芒芴之間，變而有氣，氣變而有形，形變而有生。今又變而之
死。是相與為春秋冬夏四時行也。人且偃然寢於巨室，而我噭
噭然隨而哭之，自以為不通乎命，故止也。」(莊子 至樂)
Self: What Is the Nature of a True
Master


“Joy, anger, grief, delight, worry, regret, fickleness, inflexibility,
modesty, willfulness, candor, insolence—music from empty
holes, mushrooms springing up in dampness, day and night
replacing each other before us, and no one knows where
they sprout from. Let it be! Let it be! It is enough that
morning and evening we have them, and they are the means
by which we live. Without them we would not exist; without us
they would have nothing to take hold of. This comes close to
the matter. But I do not know what makes them the way they
are. It would seem as though they have some True Master,
and yet I find no trace of him. He can act—that is certain. Yet I
cannot see his form. He has identity but no form.” (tr.
Watson, 1968)
喜怒哀樂，慮嘆愛慹，姚佚啟態；樂出虛，蒸成菌。日夜相代乎前，而莫
知其所萌。已乎，已乎！旦暮得此，其所由以生乎！非彼旡我，非我旡所
取。是亦近矣，而不知其所為使。若有真宰，而特不得其眹。可行己信，
而不見其形，有情而旡形。百骸、九竅、六藏，賅而存焉，吾誰與為親？
汝皆說之乎？其有私焉？如是皆有為臣妾乎？其臣妾不足以相治乎？其遞
相為君臣乎？其有真君存焉？如求得其情與不得，無益損乎其真。 (莊子
齊物論)
Self: Does the Thing Called “I” Exist?
 “What’s more, we go around telling
each other, I do this, I do that—but
how do we know that this ‘I’ we talk
about has any ‘I’ to it?” (tr. Watson,
1968)
 「且也相與吾之耳矣，庸詎知吾所謂吾之
乎？」（大宗師）
Self Is an Illusion: the Dream of
the Butterfly
 昔者莊周夢為胡蝶，栩栩然胡蝶也。自喻適志與！不知周也。
俄然覺，則蘧蘧然周也。不知周之夢為胡蝶與？胡蝶之夢為周
與？周與胡蝶，則必有分矣。此之謂物化。
 Once Zhuang Zhou dreamt he was a butterfly, a
butterfly flittering and fluttering around, happy with
himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he
was Zhuang Zhou. Suddenly he woke up and there he
was, solid and unmistakable Zhuang Zhou. But he
didn't know if he was Zhuang Zhou who had dreamt
he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was
Zhuang Zhou. Between Zhuang Zhou and a butterfly
there must be some distinction! This is called the
Transformation of Things. (tr. Watson, 1968)
Person: What Is It to Identify
Oneself as a Cow/Horse?
 Zhuangzi describes an enlightened
person T’ai as “sometimes thinking of
himself as a horse and sometimes as
a cow” (tr. Watson, 1968)
 泰氏，其臥徐徐，其覺于于；一以己為馬，
一以己為牛；其知情信，其德甚真，而未始
人於非人。（應帝王）
Mark Johnston’s Theory of Personal
Identity (2010)
 There is no objectively right or wrong
answer to the question about personal
identity.
 Personal identity is judgment-dependent:
whether I will be the same person as a
previous one is determined by my
dispositions to make relevant judgments
about my identity.
 We can cultivate our own identitydetermining dispositions.
Zhuangzi’s View of an Ideal Person
Illuminated by Johnston’s Theory




Three communities:
A) Human Being
B) Teletransporters
C) T’ai
For Parfit, a person survives teletransportation
(the relation R continues to exist).
For Zhuangzi, a person like T’ai survives as a
cow or a horse continues to exist.
Zhuagnzi’s View of an Ideal Person
 指窮於為薪，火傳也，不知其盡也。（養生主）
 “Though the grease burns out of the torch,
the fire passes on, and no one knows where
it ends. ”
 天地與我並生，而萬物與我為一。
天地一指也，萬物一馬也。 （齊物論）
An ideal person identifies her future existence
as continued by heaven and earth. Such a
person can then survive as heaven and
earth, or, nature, survives.
Two Merits of Zhuangzi’s View of Man and
Nature When Implementing Thompsonian
Agrarianism
 1) Man is not a dualistic entity, but part of
earth and heaven in a constantly
transformational process.
 2) If there is something sacred and
valuable about me, there is something
sacred and valuable about nature, given
the uniformity and continuity of the two.
Zhuangzi’s ontological view of man and nature
appears to offer a suitable ground on which
Thompson’s agrarian version of
environmental ethics may be built and
developed.
Zhuangzi’s View of the Role of
Instrument in Man-Nature Interaction

“Tzu-kung traveled south to Ch'u, and on his way back through Chin,
as he passed along the south bank of the Han, he saw an old man
preparing his fields for planting. He had hollowed out an opening by
which he entered the well and from which he emerged, lugging a
pitcher, which he carried out to water the fields. Grunting and
puffing, he used up a great deal of energy and produced very little
result. "There is a machine for this sort of thing," said Tzu-kung. "In
one day it can water a hundred fields, demanding very little
effort .and producing excellent results. Wouldn't you like one?” The
gardener raised his head and looked at Tzu-kung. "How does it
work?""It's a contraption made by shaping a piece of wood. The
back end is heavy and the front end light and it raises the water as
though it were pouring it out, so fast that it seems to boil right over!
It's called a well sweep.“ The gardener flushed with anger and then
said with a laugh, "I've heard my teacher say, where there are
machines, there are bound to be machine worries; where there are
machine worries, there are bound to be machine hearts. With a
machine heart in your breast, you've spoiled what was pure and
simple; and without the pure and simple, the life of the spirit knows
no rest. Where the life of the spirit knows no rest, the Way will
cease to buoy you up. It's not that I don't know about your machine
- I would be ashamed to use it!“ (tr. Watson, 1968)
Original Text

子貢南遊於楚，反於晉，過漢陰，見一丈人方將為圃畦，鑿隧而入井，抱甕而
出灌，搰搰然用力甚多而見功寡。子貢曰：「有械於此，一日浸百畦，用力甚
寡而見功多，夫子不欲乎？」為圃者卬而視之曰：「奈何？」曰：「鑿木為機，
後重前輕，挈水若抽，數如泆湯，其名為槔。」為圃者忿然作色而笑曰：「吾
聞之吾師，有機械者必有機事，有機事者必有機心。機心存於胸中則純白不備，
純白不備則神生不定，神生不定者，道之所不載也。吾非不知，羞而不為也。」
子貢瞞然 ，俯而不對。有閒，為圃者曰：「子奚為者邪？」曰：「孔丘之徒
也。」為圃者曰：「子非夫博學以擬聖，於于以蓋眾，獨弦哀歌以賣名聲於天
下者乎？汝方將忘汝神氣，墮汝形骸，而庶幾乎！而身之不能治，而何暇治天
下乎！子往矣，旡乏吾事。」子貢卑陬失色，頊頊然不自得，行三十里而後愈。
其弟子曰：「向之人何為者邪？夫子何故見之變容失色，終日不自反邪？」曰：
「始吾以為天下一人耳，不知復有夫人也。吾聞之夫子，事求可，功求成，用
力少，見功多者，聖人之道。今徒不然。執道者德全，德全者形全，形全者神
全。神全者，聖人之道也。托生與民並行而不知其所之，汒乎淳備哉！功利機
巧必忘夫人之心。若夫人者，非其志不之，非其心不為。雖以天下譽之，得其
所謂，謷然不顧﹔以天下非之，失其所謂，儻然不受。天下之非譽，旡益損焉，
是謂全德之人哉！我之謂風波之民。」反於魯，以告孔子。孔子曰：「彼假修
渾沌氏之術者也。識其一，不知其二﹔治其內，而不治其外。夫明白入素，旡
為復朴，體性抱神，以遊世俗之間者，汝將固驚邪？且渾沌之術，予與汝何足
以識之哉！」(莊子 天地)
An Extra Merit of Zhuangzi’s
Philosophy
 Considerations of how man should
use instruments in the exploitation of
natural resources may help bringing
about some important constraints on
the implementation of Thompsonian
Agrarianism.
 Thank you for your attention!