Any interest in environmental ethics?

[phyllo]

Any interest in environmental ethics?

AI Overview

Environmental ethics is a branch of philosophy that analyzes the moral relationship between humans and the natural environment, determining the value of non-human entities and the responsibilities of people towards nature. It bridges science and ethics, addressing issues like climate change, sustainability, and biodiversity, questioning whether ecosystems have intrinsic value beyond human utility.

Key Concepts in Environmental Ethics

Anthropocentrism (Human-Centered): Only humans have intrinsic moral standing, and nature is valuable solely for its utility to humans.

Biocentrism (Life-Centered): All living organisms have intrinsic value, regardless of their utility to humans.

Ecocentrism (Ecosystem-Centered): Focuses on the moral significance of ecosystems, species, and ecological processes, placing value on the whole environment, not just individual living beings.

Deep Ecology: A philosophical viewpoint advocating for the intrinsic worth of nature, arguing for radical changes in human societal structures to reduce environmental impact.

Key Themes and Debates

Intrinsic vs. Utilitarian Value: The core debate over whether nature has value in itself (intrinsic) or only for what it provides to humans (utilitarian).

Intergenerational Equity: The ethical responsibility of current generations to preserve resources and a healthy environment for future generations.

Environmental Justice: The fair treatment and involvement of all people, regardless of race or income, regarding environmental regulations and sustainability efforts.

Ecofeminism: Connects the exploitation of nature with the exploitation of women and other marginalized groups, challenging the underlying dynamics of domination.

[Impenitent]

if we can't convince the people to behave a certain way with promises of heaven, try something else

if we can't convince the people to behave a certain way with promises of communist utopia, try something else

maybe we can convince the people to behave a certain way with promises of the destruction of the planet...

you don't believe in god or utopia, maybe our environmental "science" will convince you to obey

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

OK, you apparently do not believe the ecological crisis is real, the coming ecological collapse real. Just a sham for some political/social purpose to manipulate people.

Question: As well as sham threats can be used to manipulate people, so can real threats. In the latter case, does the fact that can be used that way make the threat unreal? Something that can be ignored? It's rather hard to think of any problem that cannot be used to manipulate people.

[Impenitent]

the sky really is falling

the planet has too many humans on it

let's eliminate the humans we deem unfit

-Imp

[FlashDangerpants]

Environmental ethics is a topic worthy of discussion. But if we end up with it amounting to nothing but an effort to overcome the motivated reasoning issues that afflict a bunch of political right wingers on this site, that won't be much use. You can look at the gender sub to see what outcome you should expect, all that is discussed there is how annoyed a few people here get that somebody they never met lives their life an a way that our local vicar wouldn't choose.

The far-right conspiracy loons who blame Karl Marx for everything are going to tell you that environmental concerns are some sort of Marxist population control plan. You gotta learn to tune those loons out if you have something about the topic you actually want to discuss or else they will railroad you into their Marx obsession every time.

[phyllo]

I expect it to go down 3 alleys :

1. Marxist conspiracy
2. Fake science
3. We can't do anything about it

[MikeNovack]

The far-right conspiracy loons who blame Karl Marx for everything are going to tell you that environmental concerns are some sort of Marxist population control plan. You gotta learn to tune those loons out if you have something about the topic you actually want to discuss or else they will railroad you into their Marx obsession every time.

More concerning is the notion put forth that the reality of the environmental crisis matters.

This is ETHICS. When we present a scenario and ask for an ethical/moral judgment we ordinarily are not asked to justify the REALITY of the scenario. Thus in the classic "runaway trolley car" scenario we are NOT questioning the reality; here are real tracks, a real trolley care on them, etc. If you are unprepared to take scenarios as given you are unprepared to discuss ethical/moral questions.

Anybody who wants to argue about the reality of the environmental crisis please go away and argue on an appropriate forum. Real or not real is a scientific question, so argue on some science forum.

BUT --- the third "direction" in the previous post does have ethical/moral implications, not out of order. If somebody wants to argue "even if real, already too late to do anythoing useful" so why upset people unnecessarily". Ethical/moral judgements are only about POSSIBLE choicews.

[phyllo]

Okay, going away.

[FlashDangerpants]

I expect it to go down 3 alleys :

1. Marxist conspiracy
2. Fake science
3. We can't do anything about it

There might also be one guy who thinks it doesn't really matter because Jebus is about to return and do the most literal Deus Ex Machina ending that is logically possible.

[FlashDangerpants]

This is ETHICS. When we present a scenario and ask for an ethical/moral judgment we ordinarily are not asked to justify the REALITY of the scenario. Thus in the classic "runaway trolley car" scenario we are NOT questioning the reality; here are real tracks, a real trolley care on them, etc. If you are unprepared to take scenarios as given you are unprepared to discuss ethical/moral questions.

Uhm, this is the "Applied Ethics" sub.

But aside from that, in every discussion of any real substance, the question of what might ride on this is always present. The entirely unimportant academic debate over free will becomes suddenly meaningful when slackjawed yokels get hold of it and assume it means the end of personal responsibility because they incorrectly think something rides on the outcome of the debate.

If it is indeed your position though that nothing rides on any discussion of environmental ethics (quite a radical position I must say), then please proceed on this entirely academic train of thought that is not intended to have any impact on reasoning about the world we live in. I wish you good luck with that.

[phyllo]

There might also be one guy who thinks it doesn't really matter because Jebus is about to return and do the most literal Deus Ex Machina ending that is logically possible.

True

[MikeNovack]

There might also be one guy who thinks it doesn't really matter because Jebus is about to return and do the most literal Deus Ex Machina ending that is logically possible.

And there might be Marxists, who just as certainly believe that ALL ills/problems are caused by capitalism, and so if only we do away with capitalism, these ills/problems will go poof/vanish. In other words, just as much "true believers" with just as much a magical mindset. The religious fundamentalists here would do a lot better understanding Marxism as a competing RELIGION they disapproved of (even though difficult for them to conceive of a secular religion, secularists having a morality (however wrongheaded), etc.

[FlashDangerpants]

There might also be one guy who thinks it doesn't really matter because Jebus is about to return and do the most literal Deus Ex Machina ending that is logically possible.

And there might be Marxists, who just as certainly believe that ALL ills/problems are caused by capitalism, and so if only we do away with capitalism, these ills/problems will go poof/vanish. In other words, just as much "true believers" with just as much a magical mindset. The religious fundamentalists here would do a lot better understanding Marxism as a competing RELIGION they disapproved of (even though difficult for them to conceive of a secular religion, secularists having a morality (however wrongheaded), etc.

phyllo knew who I was talking about.