The “shallow ecology movement”, as Næss (1973) calls it, is the “fight against pollution and resource depletion”, the central objective of which is “the health and affluence of people in the developed countries.” The “deep ecology movement”, in contrast, endorses “biospheric egalitarianism”, the view that all living things are alike in having value in their own right, independent of their usefulness to others. The deep ecologist respects this intrinsic value, taking care, for example, when walking on the mountainside not to cause unnecessary damage to the plants.
As philosophers, what are your thoughts on "deep ecology"? Do you consider yourself a "deep ecologist" (or for that matter an "ecologist" at all)? Is "Deep Ecology" the ultimate, truest or most "authentic" way of existing? Is it too extreme? Or is environmentalism at its very core fundamentally misguided and there would be nothing wrong with paving over the entire planet so long as human beings are able to flourish on it?
The “shallow ecology movement”, as Næss (1973) calls it, is the “fight against pollution and resource depletion”, the central objective of which is “the health and affluence of people in the developed countries.” The “deep ecology movement”, in contrast, endorses “biospheric egalitarianism”, the view that all living things are alike in having value in their own right, independent of their usefulness to others. The deep ecologist respects this intrinsic value, taking care, for example, when walking on the mountainside not to cause unnecessary damage to the plants.
As philosophers, what are your thoughts on "deep ecology"? Do you consider yourself a "deep ecologist" (or for that matter an "ecologist" at all)? Is "Deep Ecology" the ultimate, truest or most "authentic" way of existing? Is it too extreme? Or is environmentalism at its very core just misguided and there would be nothing wrong with paving over the entire planet so long as human beings are able to flourish on it?
Thank you for replying.
Ooooh, I remember this...very vaguely...from part of an OU course. I recall the scale or spectrum from left - light green (shallow) to right - dark green (deep).
I definitely remember that there was a third option - the middle ground but can't for the life of me remember what it was. Anyway, fascinating topic with real-life implications. I chose the middle ground; not given to extremes...
More info here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/
Perhaps when time permits, I'll dig deeper...and hope that no worms or plants are harmed in the process.
OK, can't find my book - must have thrown it away
However, the OU has probably updated their environmental ethics component.
Worth looking into; I found this after a quick search: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/nature-en ... ection-1.3
1.3 The influence of environmental ethics: value and care
Religious ethics can play a significant role in shaping appropriate narratives that provide for a lived ethic – that is, the obligations and entitlements associated with human relationships with Nature that embody what’s good and what’s right. But how might other ethical traditions help towards developing a lived ethic? To what extent has the emergence of environmental ethics since the 1970s influenced a lived ethic commensurate with developing care for the environment?
Andrew Light, a philosopher and advocate of environmental pragmatism, points out that much of the work done by academics on developing environmental ethics since the 1970s has focused on arguing for a much-needed reappraisal of the value of nature. In short, the work has concentrated on asserting the principle that nature does matter! Endeavours have focused on theorising about the value of nature. However, there is a critique of such endeavours to be made, which might be understood in terms of conversations not fully contributing towards a lived ethic. This critique is explored below, followed by a brief examination of ideas from the consequentialist ethical tradition that may address some of Light’s concerns
Environmental ethics has since progressed through what Light regards as an over-emphasis on theoretical discussion about the precise way in which nature should be valued. He refers to these discussions as debates – not unreasonably, given the often intransigent positioning of advocates on either side of the discussion. The four debates can be summarised as follows:
1.anthropocentrism vs ecocentrism
2.individual vs holistic ecocentrism
3.subjective vs objective holism
4.moral monism vs moral pluralism.
From Light’s perspective, the sometimes intransigent nature of debates (Figure 3) is a reason why environmental ethics has not contributed as much as it could towards shaping action and policy. Academic competitiveness, and seeming lack of consensus amongst academics, makes it difficult for the discipline to reach out and influence other disciplines and practices associated with caring for and protecting the environment
The “shallow ecology movement”, as Næss (1973) calls it, is the “fight against pollution and resource depletion”, the central objective of which is “the health and affluence of people in the developed countries.” The “deep ecology movement”, in contrast, endorses “biospheric egalitarianism”, the view that all living things are alike in having value in their own right, independent of their usefulness to others. The deep ecologist respects this intrinsic value, taking care, for example, when walking on the mountainside not to cause unnecessary damage to the plants.
As philosophers, what are your thoughts on "deep ecology"? Do you consider yourself a "deep ecologist" (or for that matter an "ecologist" at all)? Is "Deep Ecology" the ultimate, truest or most "authentic" way of existing? Is it too extreme? Or is environmentalism at its very core just misguided and there would be nothing wrong with paving over the entire planet so long as human beings are able to flourish on it?
Thank you for replying.
Ooooh, I remember this...very vaguely...from part of an OU course. I recall the scale or spectrum from left - light green (shallow) to right - dark green (deep).
I definitely remember that there was a third option - the middle ground but can't for the life of me remember what it was.
Interesting. I'm curious what that "middle ground" would be as well.
1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: inherent worth, intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
4. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
5. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
6. Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.
The book I read was part of the OU module 'Philosophy and the Human Situation'.
It is 'Environmental Ethics: an Introduction with readings' by John Benson. You can 'Look Inside' on amazon.
Presupposing no prior knowledge of philosophy, John Benson introduces the fundamentals of environmental ethics by asking whether a concern with human well-being is an adequate basis for environmental ethics. He encourages the reader to explore this question, considering techniques used to value the environment and critically examining 'light green' to 'deep green' environmentalism. Each chapter is linked to a reading from a key thinker such as J.S. Mill and E.O. Wilson.
Key features include activities and exercises, enabling readers to monitor their progress throughout the book, chapter summaries and guides to further reading.
I 'Looked Inside' and scrolled down the list of readings. I recall being impressed by no 9 - 'Wonder' - R.W. Hepburn. From what I remember, it offered a perspective based on aesthetic value. Refreshing to read after all the more adversarial approaches...'from what I remember'...
At the time...I've a feeling that the view I settled on, was actually Benson's own...
