Secular attitudes to Environmental Ethics
There are three secular attitudes to Environmental Ethics: Deep Ecology, Shallow Ecology and
Ecological Extension
Deep Ecology (also known as Libertarianism)
ARNE NAESS (1912-2009) – invented the terms deep ecology and shallow ecology. His love of the
sea first made him realise the importance and integrity of nature, and led him to develop the idea of
deep and shallow ecology. Since 1973 ecologists use these terms to describe two different types of
environmentalism.
Naess was concerned with the richness, diversity and intrinsic value of the environment – this is
deep ecology. He argued (as does Peter Singer) that any form of anthropocentrism is speciestist.
The sea and the mountains led him to see the grandeur of the natural environment. He rejected
supernatural claims about God and religion, as such things are unnecessary when the spiritual
nature of the natural world is in front of you. Naess’ deep ecology, therefore, has a spiritual basis to
it. Naess was strongly influenced by his understanding of Hinduism and, particularly, the life and
ideas of Mahatma Gandhi. He was fascinated by the Vedic understanding of the human soul (atman)
as part of an eternal soul that comprises all of Creation. Mountains, trees, rivers, plants, animals all
have a spiritual reality which should be respected. The human being is only one part of this
integrated and mutually dependent ecological structure. Human beings are not special. This
understanding of the unity of all things Naess calls ecosophy, the idea that true knowledge lies in the
harmony of Creation. Despite his rejection of Western Christian values, his understanding of nature
as harmonic is related to Aristotle and Aquinas’ views of a harmonic Creation. Yet there is one
profound difference. Aquinas’ philosophy of nature is anthropocentric. Humanity is at the heart of
the ecosystem. Naess’ view is of ecocentrism. He puts nature at the heart. No one piece of the
jigsaw of existence is any more important than any other. Naess’ ecocentrism, however, does not
mean that he ignores the plight of human beings. Humanity matters as a vital part of the jigsaw of
Creation. This view of ecology was summarised by Naess and his colleague GEORGE SESSIONS, as
the deep ecology platform.
This is a series of interconnected beliefs that:
 All life has equal intrinsic value.
 The diversity and richness of life on earth contributes to the planet’s welfare.
 No single life form, including humanity, has a right to destroy the earth’s diversity and
richness.
 Humans are the cause of the destruction of this diversity and richness.
 The growth of the world’s human population and changing lifestyles are the primary cause
of this destruction.
 Change is urgently needed to prevent further damage and to restore the ecosystem’s
variety.
 Change requires peaceful protest and campaigns to alter the structures and organisations
that undermine biodiversity.
Naess’ solution for the planet to avoid future environmental crisis is very simple and still
revolutionary.





Significantly reduce the population of the planet
Abandon any goals for economic growth
Preserve and conserve the diversity of species
Live in small, self reliant communities
Touch the earth lightly
Criticisms of Deep Ecology
Arguments rage about the best method to reduce population and thereby prevent the destruction of
biodiversity. A few deep ecologists argue that starvation is a natural process and that an
unsustainable human population should be allowed to die. This causes outrage. LUC FERRY, a French
scholar, calls this ecofascism. He also questions why the land should be regarded as equally
important as human life.
Supporters of Deep Ecology
Despite these criticisms, the deep ecology movement has developed as a result of growing worries
about the sustainability of the planet. The American philosopher, BRON TAYLOR, claims that there
is a growing fear, similar to the apocalyptic beliefs of the early Christians, which argues that the
world is coming to an end. Deep ecologists tap into this view. RICHARD SYLVAN has developed an
alternative approach to deep ecology called deep green theory, which involves respect but not
reverence for the environment.
Eco-holism or Ecological Extension
Ecological Extension is the belief that all ecosystems and living things are interdependent. James
Lovelock is an environmentalist who believes that solutions to the changing nature of the climate
cannot be solved by humans. He argues that individual things are really parts of a bigger single entity
called Gaia, named after the ancient Greek goddess of the earth.
 This entity is strangely spiritual yet physical.
 It exists in all things.
 It cannot be completely understood by humans.
 Humans, animals and plants are parts of Gaia.
 Like cogs in a machine, the cog cannot understand fully how the machine works. They
certainly cannot understand what the machine’s purpose is.
Gaia is, above all, a way of looking at the world. The basis of the Gaia hypothesis is to imagine the
world and everything in it as a single living organism. What, to human beings, appear as dead rocks
are no such thing – they are part of the living entity that is Gaia.
Support for Gaia
This perception of the earth as a living organism has its origins in Plato. In his work Timaeus Plato
imagines that the world is a body made of the 4 elements of wind, earth, fire and water. Since these
elements cancel each other out, the earth can never get too hot or cold and therefore can never get
sick. Plato wrote the earth is ‘complete and free from age and sickness’. Aristotle and the first
Christians agreed with Plato. God would not permit the earth to self-destruct. This is the view held
by Augustine and later Aquinas. Lovelock’s view of Gaia is anthropomorphic rather than
anthropocentric. He follows the early English scientist Francis Bacon (1561-1626) in viewing the
planets as living organisms, rather than dead rocks. Galileo imagined that the planets pulsated.
Lovelock seems to have come to this understanding while he was working as a scientist at NASA. His
work on the Mars exploration led him to conclude that the earth has a soul – “the earth behaves as a
single, self-regulating system.”
Rejecters of Gaia
It was viewed critically by neo-Darwinians who reject the idea that the planet is a single organism.
Many scientists rejected Lovelock’s views because of their anthropomorphic nature. However, a
growing band saw the logic of his argument, but not its spiritual nature. Richard Dawkins claims
that Lovelock’s theory that all life ‘clubs together for some sort of mutual advantage or benefit is
inconceivable. He says that basic evolutionary theory disproves this almost completely. The
scientific idea of survival of the fittest means that species adapt and develop in response to altered
conditions and will survive. Lynn Margulis (1938-) suggests that Dawkins’ perspective and the Gaia
hypothesis are compatible if ideas of a symbiosis are accepted. She believes that organisms will, at
times, combine with other organisms in a symbiotic relationship in order to survive, whilst remaining
individual organisms. There are many examples from nature, such as pilot fish that clean the teeth
of sharks in return for their protection. She suggests that some of the ideas or Darwinism can be
brought closer to the ideas of Gaia hypotheses, resulting in weak Gaia theory. This accepts the
science of the interrelationship of everything on earth but does not see the planet as a single body
with a soul.
Shallow Ecology (also called social environmentalism).
Shallow ecology is anthropocentric – the environment matters because of the effect it has on human
welfare. It is also based on the idea that human beings have intrinsic value, plants and animals only
have instrumental value.
At the heart of shallow ecology is the idea of:
a. conservation: preservation, protection or restoration of the natural environment and
wildlife,
b. biodiversity: the variety of plant and animal life in the world, or in a particular habitat.
Unlike deep ecology, shallow ecology does not believe that maintaining biodiversity is a
virtuous principle in itself. For example, when effluent is released by accident into a river,
fish and other creatures are killed but vast amounts of bacteria flourish and biodiversity may
be enlarged. Shallow ecologists do not see such diversity as a good thing if the river’s
usefulness to humans is destroyed. They argue that humans come first in the chain of
existence and so natural habitat can be destroyed if it is for the welfare of people.
Shallow ecology, unlike deep ecology, relies heavily on calculations of what is and what is not
environmentally beneficial for the welfare of people. This leads to a utilitarian approach to the
environment, which many criticise as difficult to assess. How is it possible to validate the welfare
benefits of environmental schemes years in advance? For example, shallow ecologists spearheaded
the National Parks Scheme. This has been an undeniable success in making available to the general
public parts of the country that were off-limits. However, the growth of tourism comes at a price.
The influx of tourists damages the very ecosystem that the scheme was designed to save (litter,
erosion, vandalism, pollution etc).
This raises another issue – should the clock be turned back? This is a central question in shallow
ecology. It affects the restoration of beavers to Scotland and of red squirrels to England. There are
some environmentalists who argue that it is morally important to restore the habitat to its natural
state. Others argue that this is not cost effective and, in any case, nature is not static. Life goes on
and nature is forever changing.
Michael LaBossiere suggests that an anthropocentric approach can be justified as part of the natural
order of evolution. He argues that this means that species should be allowed to die out if their
natural habitat ceases to exist. It is impossible and, in the end, detrimental to stop changes
occurring. Adaptability, a key word in Darwinian thought, is important. Nature will take its course.
He is not suggesting that humans should try and wipe out specific species, however, if it becomes
extinct naturally as a consequence of humanity’s action, this is acceptable.