The Philosophy Discussion Forum

<< Environmental Ethics" topis will usually be under Applied Ethics but THIS topic better under theory >>

Social Justice is that part of Ethics where we deal with the inequitable distribution of some good or some evil (among people). It doesn't usually seem to matter what sort of good or evil, we usually consider a social justice matter regardless. So whatever sort, people who work on some issue (some sort of inequitable distribution0 self describe as "social justice activists" (as opposed to activists of that sort). That's because social justice activists rarely confine their concern to just some sort of injustice.

WHY is it different when it's about an environmental issue?

In other words, there are issues of "environmental justice" where some environmental good or evil is being inequitably distributed (usually concerned about some evil). In the real world, there are many who self describe as an "environmental activist" even though only working ONLY on an environmental justice issue (or issues). Note that often we COULD address an environmental justice issue associated with some environmental problem without actually addressing the underlying environmental problem at all.

Yes there is "politics". It might be impossible to address an underlying environmental problem without first addressing the associated "environmental issue" along the lines of "we will not co-operate dealing with problem X unless you first address our justice concern" related to X. But that is not the same as seeing an "environmental justice" issue as an environmental issue << for "politics" we are usually making a political judgement "do we NEED that co-operation >>

Thoughts about why this difference when it's environmental problems? << sorry for those too unfamiliar with the environmental/animal welfare activist scenes. But this is a real matter causing many internal fights >>

justice is a heavily loaded term

One of Rush's best:

There is unrest in the forest
Trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light

But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream, "Oppression"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
They say, "The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light"

Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw

-Imp

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2026 6:02 pm WHY is it different when it's about an environmental issue?

In other words, there are issues of "environmental justice" where some environmental good or evil is being inequitably distributed (usually concerned about some evil). In the real world, there are many who self describe as an "environmental activist" even though only working ONLY on an environmental justice issue (or issues). Note that often we COULD address an environmental justice issue associated with some environmental problem without actually addressing the underlying environmental problem at all.

I'm not sure if you were attempting to answer your own question there, or if it is rhetorical, moot, or you just forgot about it once you started the next sentence?

I always thought that the thing that makes an environmental issue different is largely distance and time. If the potential fallout from today's wasteful misuse of the Earth and the stuff that is on or in it will largely cause harms to future generations, that is a problem for certain ethical schools of belief. Consequentialism already has an issue with time. Once you stat forcing their utilitarian calculus to take into account 1,000 years of melting ice and frothy ocean plastics, everything probably falls apart for that entire school of moral philosophy. Contractarians would have similar problems.

meteors crashing into the planets all the time

can't happen here- Thunder Lizard is special

can't happen again - human environmentalism is saving the planet

hubris? no way

-Imp

I really wish you wouldn't jump ahead and would ask/respond to SPECIFIC questions.

Am I correct, your insistence on sarcasm prevented you from clearly ASKING us an environmental ethics question. Do I have this right?

If "environmentalism" (actions we take) will be insufficient/unable to prevent ecological collapse does that mean environmental ethics/morality is meaningless? Nothing to discuss? That is akin to arguing "there are no ethics on a sinking ship, anything goes". Feel free to defend that position, but you can't just state without argument.

For example, I believe whatever we do already "too little, too late" and collapse/crash inevitable. But obviously I still think environmental ethics worthy of discussion.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 2:11 pm I really wish you wouldn't jump ahead and would ask/respond to SPECIFIC questions.

Am I correct, your insistence on sarcasm prevented you from clearly ASKING us an environmental ethics question. Do I have this right?

If "environmentalism" (actions we take) will be insufficient/unable to prevent ecological collapse does that mean environmental ethics/morality is meaningless? Nothing to discuss? That is akin to arguing "there are no ethics on a sinking ship, anything goes". Feel free to defend that position, but you can't just state without argument.

For example, I believe whatever we do already "too little, too late" and collapse/crash inevitable. But obviously I still think environmental ethics worthy of discussion.

my prediction of future events (meteors striking the planet) must be sarcastic... (it happens constantly, but most are just tiny...)

https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/m ... eteorites/

your clairvoyance of the doomed planet is, of course, correct and any other foreseeable future apocalypse is absurd...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 2:38 pm
your clairvoyance of the doomed planet is, of course, correct and any other foreseeable future apocalypse is absurd...

-Imp

The PLANET is not doomed. Neither is all life on the planet doomed.

But NOT "clairvoyance". For example, the Antarctic glaciers are already collapsing, irreversible. From that sea levels will rise about a meter in maybe 50 years and over three meters in 150 years. That will displace, set in motion, how many hundred million humans? What happens in that case? What are the ethical issues.

A great many species will go extinct, but not all. Evolution will result in refilling the changed niches. But how will we humans fit in?

invest in u-haul trucks and scuba gear...

the great penguin migration to South America will be interesting

-Imp

edit: "For example, the Antarctic glaciers are already collapsing, irreversible. "

irreversible... you must behave in accordance with the gospel of enviro-goodness to reverse this irreversible collapse...

then again...