Environmental Ethics : Moral Approaches to Nature Conservation

With the spread of the Industrial Revolution across the globe and the intensification of industrialization, the effects of gases such as CO₂ (carbon dioxide), SO₂ (sulfur dioxide), NO₂ (nitrogen dioxide), and NH₃ (ammonia) emitted into the atmosphere on human health have increased, reaching alarming levels in certain countries. These effects were initially observed in countries that made significant progress in industrialization. While various examples from the first half of the 20th century could illustrate this phenomenon, the most noteworthy developments were recorded in the second half of the century. For example, in December 1952, abnormally low temperatures in London, coupled with an increase in coal use and SO₂ emissions, resulted in a deadly fog.^[1]This lethal fog, lasting five days and causing approximately 12,000 deaths, is considered one of history’s largest environmental disasters.

Undoubtedly, the environmental issues that emerged with the Industrial Revolution extend beyond air pollution alone. Environmental problems observed during this period include biodiversity loss, deaths and diseases caused by toxic substances (such as lead and acid) contaminating soil and water, nuclear plant accidents, coal and natural gas burns, water pollution, depletion of water resources, electronic waste dumps, and a range of atmospheric anomalies related to climate change. Contrary to popular belief, environmental issues are not solely a subject of technological criticism, where the implications of scientific and technical advancements are evaluated; they are also the subject of ethical and philosophical inquiry. In other words, while scientific and technical expertise is undoubtedly essential when seeking solutions to environmental issues, equally important is a critical examination of the moral nature of humanity’s relationship with nature. This examination is conducted within the framework of environmental ethics—a philosophical discipline that systematically analyzes these moral relationships, investigates to whom and what human communities and individuals owe responsibility, and attempts to establish the source and justification of these responsibilities.^[2]
Today, many people believe it is morally wrong for humans to pollute and destroy the natural environment and deplete a significant portion of natural resources. If this is indeed wrong, is it because a sustainable environment is essential for human survival and well-being? Or is it because such behavior is wrong due to the inherent value that the natural environment and/or its various components possess and should therefore be protected accordingly?^[3] All of these issues explored by environmental ethics can address specific events on a small scale or encompass global problems encountered by specific groups or communities.

Numerous philosophical approaches to environmental ethics exist, which can be categorized under five main headings:

1. Anthropocentric (Human-Centered) Approach
2. Pain-Centered Ethical Approach
3. Biocentric (Life-Centered) Approach
4. Ecocentric (Environment-Centered) Approach
5. Futuristic Approach

The anthropocentric (human-centered) approach asserts that humans are “masters of nature” and that all non-human beings exist to serve and benefit humans.^[4] This approach, believed to date back to the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras’ proposition that “man is the measure of all things,” became more prevalent as technology advanced and human needs diversified.^[5] This perspective legitimizes the unrestricted and arbitrary use of natural resources and other living species by humans, and is seen as one of the primary causes of the current global climate crisis and environmental disasters.

The pain-centered ethical approach, also known as limited biocentrism, differs from anthropocentric views by asserting that beings capable of experiencing pain also possess certain rights, thereby attributing value to these beings.^[6]Within this framework, it is argued that humans bear responsibilities, such as refraining from restricting animal habitats and avoiding their use in ways that cause pain. Due to the challenges of detecting and measuring pain and the potential for speciesism (discrimination based on species), this approach is considered a form of limited biocentrism. Despite its limitations, the pain-centered ethical approach holds a significant role in the transition from human-centered to life-centered ethical thinking.

Contrary to the anthropocentric ethical approach, the biocentric (life-centered) ethical approach asserts that animals, plants, and all other living beings possess inherent value simply because they are alive, and that humans have an obligation to respect these beings.^[7] One of the greatest proponents of this approach, Paul Taylor, presents a detailed framework of the biocentric approach in his book Respect for Nature, describing the recognition and acceptance of the inherent value of living beings as the “highest moral stance.^[8]Embracing this stance requires morally responsible behavior toward the natural environment.

Considered a step beyond the life-centered ethical approach in terms of inclusivity, the ecocentric (environment-centered) approach posits that all living and non-living entities on Earth are interconnected, thus adopting a holistic perspective on ecosystems and attributing value to each member of the ecosystem.^[9] The aim of this approach is to eliminate the destructive outcomes caused by the human-centered ethical approach, as it is believed that humans who view themselves as part of nature will behave more respectfully toward it and make greater efforts to protect it. The most well-known and systematic presentation of the ecocentric ethical approach is undoubtedly Aldo Leopold’s “The Land Ethic,” a core essay in his book A Sand County Almanac. In “The Land Ethic,” Leopold describes the soil as a living entity, considering soil, mountains, air, and rivers as parts of a harmonious whole.^[10]Consequently, he criticizes utilitarian attitudes toward land and advocates for the protection of ecosystems and their members’ rights, moving away from human-centered views.^[11] In doing so, Leopold introduces the concept of “ecological citizenship,” whereby people, abandoning notions of human dominion, protect each other through visible or invisible bonds with other beings.

The futuristic approach, which goes beyond the ecocentric ethical approach, focuses on future generations, advocating for the continuity of both living and non-living entities.^[12] The foundation of the futuristic approach is the idea that the true owners of current resources are future generations and that people are borrowing these resources from them. This perspective emphasizes the necessity of preserving existing resources and entities for future existence. Achieving such sustainability is possible only by learning from current negative circumstances and changing attitudes toward the environment accordingly.^[13]

With the increasing environmental challenges of the 21st century, environmental ethics has prompted a reconsideration of humanity’s relationship with both living and non-living entities. By offering new and diverse perspectives, environmental ethics imposes various moral responsibilities on individuals and societies. The framework of responsibility delineated by environmental ethics undoubtedly offers a valuable roadmap for halting ecological destruction, preserving ecosystems, and creating a healthier, fairer, and more sustainable environment.

References

1) Martinez, J. (n.d.). Great Smog of London. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/event/Great-Smog-of-London .Last accessed: August 2024.
2) Des Jardins, J. R. (2006). Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy. Ankara, Turkey: İmge Publishing.
3) Brennan, A., & Lo, N. Y. S. (2021). Environmental Ethics. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/#IntChaEnvEth .Last accessed: August 2024.
4) Gülersoy, A. E., & Dursun, E. (2023). Approaches and Movements in Environmental Ethics. İksad Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8244775 . Last accessed: August 2024.
5) Çilingir, L. (2022). Protagoras: Man is the Measure of All Things. Journal of Philosophy. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/2687787 .Last accessed: August 2024.
6) Kılıç, S. (2008). Environmental Ethics: Emergence, Development, and Outcomes. Ankara, Turkey: Orion Publishing.
7) Gülersoy & Dursun, op. cit.
8) Taylor, P. W. (1981). The Ethics of Respect for Nature. Available at: https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil308/Taylor.pdf .Last accessed: August 2024.
9) Gülersoy & Dursun, op. cit.
10) Gülersoy & Dursun, op. cit.
11) Akkoyunlu Ertan, K. (2015). Leopoldian Thought and the Land Ethic. Memleket Siyaset Yönetim (MSY). 10(23), 1-20.
12) Brennan, A. & Lo, N. Y. S. (2021). Environmental Ethics. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=ethics-environmental.Last accessed: August 2024.
13) Des Jardins, op. cit.