Criticism of the Land Ethic
Reading: DesJardins:
Recap:
Lecture #23
Environmental Ethics, Chapter 8, esp. pp. 184-199
Having read Leopold=s AThe Land Ethic@ and other selected essays of A Sand County
Almanac, and having read DesJardins= opening essay on predators and his summary of
AThe Land Ethic,@ the following outline should help you focus on the logic of the various
criticisms of Leopold=s contribution to environmental ethics.
Outline:
Overview: [DesJardins, pp. 184-199]
Leopold=s Holism (DesJardins, Sec. 8.3):
A. Practical as guide to management (balance standard with pragmatism) vs. individualistic
B. Epistemological holism B as a basis for understanding (how and what we can know) of life
1. Based on ecology
2. Individual organism viewed in Acontext@ as a functional contributor to whole
C. Metaphysical holism
1. Proposes reality of Aliving Earth@ or community
2. Organic model, emergent properties (e.g. health, stability)
Criticisms of Land Ethic B Overview:
A. Moving from factual claims to normative claims (DesJardins, Sec. 8.4)
B. Ethical implications of Leopold=s holism (DesJardins, Sec. 8.5)
1. Are its ethical implications acceptable (e.g. versus individual rights)?
2. Can a meaningful account of ecological wholes be defended?
I.
Criticism of Land Ethic B Moving from factual claims(ecology) to moral claims (ethics)
A. Caution from Naturalistic Science B remember David Hume [see DesJardins, p. 28]?
1. ANaturalistic Fallacy@ B gap between facts (Awhat is@) and ethics (Awhat ought@)
2. Example: Just being Anatural@, Acomplex@, Astable@ seen insufficient for ethical
norm
3. See C. 3, page 23.2, for naturalistic evolution implications in Land Ethic
B. Telological Rebuttal B Help from AOrganic Model@ [see DesJardins, pp 23-26]
1. Succession (community) like development (organism) suggests purpose and telos
2. Problem: How judge stability or integrity of different successional communities?
3. Rebuttal: Find end/purpose of ecosystems nested in larger ecosystems
4. Example: Wetland like an excretory system of an organism (value)
5. Problem: Simply defers question of value to successively larger systems..Earth?
6. Some would take this to extreme B e.g. Lovelock=s Gaia
C. Challenge B establishing moral claim
1. Leopold: AA thing is right...preserve integrity and stability, and beauty..@
2. Ecologically based, but two hurdles:
a. How to objectively recognize or judge these qualilties?
b.
How to justify assigning moral value to these qualities?
23.2
Naturalistic evolution denies teleology B thus...
a. Wolves don=t exist to control prey pop. but because of time/chance/selection
b. Thus, naturalistic view is Abackward looking@ for cause; purposeless to future
c. Point: More than one way to interpret fact of a wolf B> gap to normative
D. Appeal to human attitudes to bridge the alleged Ais > ought gap@ of ethical holism?
1. Instead of ECOLOGICAL FACT C> ETHICAL CLAIM ...how about:
ECOLOGICAL -----> CHANGE OF ATTITUDE ----> ETHICAL VALUE
2. Problem: a. Instead of is > ought we have is > how we ought to think > ought
Moral claims would be more subjective, based on persons values.
Sounds like virtue ethics with appeal to character and dispositions
3.
II.
Criticism of Land Ethic=s Holism B Are its ethical implications acceptable?
A. Criticisms B rights of individual are sacrificed for Abiotic good@ of the whole
1. Logic: If all mambers of biotic community (incl. humans) are equal B> humans could
be hunted as animals:
2. Examples: Marti Kheel=s Atotalitarianism@ or Tom Regan=s Aenvironmental
fascism@
3. See Regan=s quote on Land Ethic, page 189
B. Rebuttals B defending holism over fascism
1. Don Marietta B holism introduces one new ethical claim to call attention to
complexity we may miss in individualistic view of nature; but, not only claim
Example: Farmer fills in wetland to increase cropland
a. Wrong from ecocentric (holistic) view B farmer less important than whole
b. Right from individualistic view (if family in bankruptcy)
2. Jon Moline B Leopold=s Athing@ [..is right...wrong..] is...
a. ...not an act per se as termed Adirect holism@ (and fascism charge would stand)
b. (rather)...the attitudes that give rise to acts B Aindirect holism@ (no fascism)
3. Leopold-Marietta-Moline Integration:
a. Leopold: Aa thing (attitude, disposition of character) is right...wrong@
b. Leopold: Abiotic mechanism is so complex...may never fully understand@
c. Marietta: Aenvironmental issues are morally complex B e.g. farmer and wetland
d. Moline: Aindirect holism is defended because ecological and moral ambiguity
requires more than Adirect holism@ (Moline: Leopold may have recognized
this)
4. Virtue triumphs in Ambiguity B less on rules..more on moral dispositions (virtues)
a. Right character Bone with disposition that expresses Alove and respect@ for land
and individuals by the acts he allows (Aindirect holism@)
b. Examples:
a. Conservative approach to management of natural areas
b.
c.
Respect for complexity (ecological) and natural (evolutionary) processes by
slow intervention (see Land Ethic, p. 226)
Respect for native plants, animals vs artificial and manufactured. solutions
23.3
c.
III.
Example: ALiving will@ in human situation
a. Acknowledges biological complexity, evolving technology and moral
uncertainty
b. Principle of self-determination is applied and we place our final days in
hands of a person of trusted character
Criticism of Land Ethic=s Holism B Is a meaningful account of ecological wholes acceptable?
A. Best defense B AOrganic Model@
1. Compatible with Aintegrity, stability, health, telos@
2. Problem: Ecology since Tansley is moving from organic model to ecosystems
B. Alternative: Emphasize Leopold=s@love and respect@ for community
1. Implies that community has Agood@ and Ainterest of its own@ (to keep holistic view)
a. ...beyond interests of individuals
b. otherwise, we would lose holism
2. Communities may have Agood of their own@ at a given point in time...
a. But how do we judge Aintegrity and stability@ of communities over time?
b. Biotic communities are not static B forests, ponds change
c. Require choices B whether to interfere or not with Anatural processes@
3. Any justification for valuing a community because of its members moves from holism
to individualism and/or instrumental value
IV. J.B. Callicott=s Revisions of Land Ethic
A. Approach: attempts to bridge the is > ought by drawing upon Hume and Darwin
1. Hume B ethics arises from sentiments (dispositions, attitudes, affections) and not from
reason:
AMorals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions.
Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality,
therefore, are not conclusions of our reason@. B A Treatise of Human Nature,
(Dover, 2003 ed.)
2.
3.
a. Moral wrong arises from within us (Asentiment of disapprobation@)
b. Likewise, ethics arise from Afacts about us@ not from Afacts about the world@
c. Example: Mother rushes to comfort her son out of relationship and affection
Darwin B relationships of parents and kin developed via evolution
a. Sentiments thus extend to wider Asocial universe@
b. Thus, Leopold: AThe land ethic simply extends the boundaries to include...@
Challenge to Callicott: sentiments are an unstable foundation for ethical norm
a. Example: Conflict between sentiments to preserve family vs. draining wetland
b. While Hume offers Ahypothetical imperative@ B i.e. affective domain
c. ...Kant offers categorical imperative B i.e. cognitive domain (claims reason)
a. Can=t  justify acts toward a wetland based on sentiments
b. Instead, reason reveals ought for every situation (categorical imperative)
32.4
4.
5.
V.
Callicott=s Rebuttal:
a. Metaphysical holism
His Aontological primacy@ of relationships (that sculpt parts) over parts
Ecosystems are a real entity in that they shape the nature of individuals
AThus, ecological holism points us to the underlying nature of reality@
b. Implication: distinction between individual and nature is blurred
i. Nature becomes an extension of the individual=s body
ii. Thus, making a Abridge@ by dissolving the divide between part and whole
c. Callicott=s Bridge:
i. ECOLOGY C> METAPHYSICS C> ETHICS
ii. Applications:
1) Arelational view of self...transforms egoism into environmentalism.@
2) If individual (esp. humans) have intrinsic value, then all nature has value
Problem:
Ecologists have yet to agree on proper energy model
Metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions normally precede and undergird
science, not vice versa
c. Objections.
Metaphysically and practically B most would agree we are distinct from nature
(the gap returns)
Naturalistic (fallacy) view - claiming Ano gap@ is insufficient for ethical norm
(Anaturalistic fallacy@ returns)
Ethically B if we are Aone with nature@ we could just as easily justify sacrificing
individual (self) for nature (fascism returns)
Conclusion B Leopold contributed much to environmental ethics by
A. Drawing attention to the whole as context for individual actions
B. Challenging us to consider the importance of attitudes or dispositions toward nature out of
which our actions are determined
C. Consider the Forward to A Sand County Almnaac in which he states that the essays contained
therein are an Aattempt to weld these three concepts (italics mine):
AThat land is a community is a basic concept of ecology, but
...that land is to be loved and respected is an extension of ethics.
That land yields a cultural harvest is a fact long known, but latterly often forgotten.@
Question: How did Leopold see land as yielding a Acultural harvest?@
VI. Looking Forward B How does the ALand Ethic@ measure up on your list of marks of a robust
environmental ethic?