Of Environmental Ethics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BY PARALLEL REASONING WITH BIOETHICS: TOWARD UNITY AND EFFECTIVENESS IN THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy at the University of Canterbury by J. E. Eggleston University of Canterbury 2011 i Abstract of a thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy BY PARALLEL REASONING WITH BIOETHICS: TOWARD UNITY AND EFFECTIVENESS IN THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS By J.E. Eggleston Whether philosophy can contribute decisively towards alleviating humanity‟s pressing environmental predicament I here argue in the affirmative. There are many considerations that challenge my case. Specifically, I show that environmental ethics, the subdiscipline of moral philosophy which was founded on the presumption of this possibility, has faltered. The field threatens to divide between “impractical theoretical” discourses within the academy, and “pragmatic” and largely atheoretical “practical” engagements with environmental science, policy and management. To help environmental ethics advance beyond this dysfunctional division, I explore methodological comparisons with bioethics, the “most successful field of applied ethics”. My deliberations apply in novel ways Bartha‟s model for evaluating the plausibility of scientific hypotheses that incorporate analogies. In an initial test application of Bartha‟s model, I evaluate the relevance to environmental ethics of the failure of the “top-down” applied ethics approach in bioethics. I present good reasons to conclude that environmental ethics can indeed learn from this failure. I also conclude that my trial application of Bartha‟s model is promising. I then evaluate two proposals for reforms towards the greater practical effectiveness of environmental ethics. First I evaluate the plausibility of the proposal of Minteer and Collins for a new field of “ecological ethics”. They argue for the adoption of the broadly pragmatic methodological commitments now prevailing in bioethics. Because they focus primarily on supporting individual rather than collaborative processes of ethical judgment, I argue they risk facilitating an ethically pernicious “ecological paternalism” on analogy with the widely condemned practice of medical paternalism. Second I evaluate Norton‟s proposal to incorporate environmental ethics within the adaptive ecosystem management paradigm. By arguing that the tasks of seeking cultural and biophysical sustainability within spatiotemporally defined communities must be integrated, Norton offers a potentially vital interface for intelligent and just interaction between culture and wider nature. I also argue this interface may be of more general relevance to bioethics and moral and political philosophy. However, a significant theoretical challenge for Norton‟s sustainability model is identified. ii I argue that his model provides a thought experiment which illustrates the conceptual and practical incoherence of the primary liberal mechanisms for managing ethical conflict once these are applied to the sustainability challenge. Those mechanisms are the separation of public and private spheres and the simultaneous pursuit within private spaces of mutually exclusive conceptions of the good (and biophysically sustainable) life. I argue that rectifying this failure defines a vital, albeit daunting, theoretical and practical challenge for environmental ethics. That is to reconceptualise ethical conflict and to help design and facilitate practical processes to achieve sufficient common ethical agreement. Addressing this challenge is beyond the scope of this dissertation. However, some promising work and possibilities for further research are outlined. I conclude that I have successfully defended the value of analogical comparison with bioethics for enhancing the unity and effectiveness of theory and practice in environmental ethics. I therefore further conclude that I am correct to affirm that philosophy can, and I believe indeed should, contribute more effectively toward alleviating humanity‟s pressing environmental predicament. iii Table of Contents List of figures and tables .................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................. vi Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1 The rise and falter of nonanthropocentric environmental ethics .................. 13 1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 13 1.2 The origins of academic environmental ethics ....................................................... 13 1.3 The “methodology wars” of environmental ethics ................................................. 28 1.4 Chapter conclusion ................................................................................................. 45 Chapter 2 The engagement of liberal moral philosophy with biomedicine .................... 47 2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 47 2.2 Defining the field ................................................................................................... 47 2.3 The beginnings of bioethics ................................................................................... 50 2.4 The “methodology wars” of bioethics .................................................................... 63 2.5 Chapter conclusion ................................................................................................. 89 Chapter 3 Bartha‟s model and its trial application to the “top-down” analogy ............ 93 3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 93 3.2 The vital but chequered role of analogical reason .................................................. 93 3.3 Bartha‟s model for constructing and evaluating analogical argument ................... 98 3.4 An illustration: the failure of the “top-down” applied ethics model .................... 109 3.5 Chapter conclusion ............................................................................................... 125 Chapter 4 The pragmatic “ecological ethics” of Minteer and Collins ........................... 127 4.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 127 4.2 A proposal for a new field – “Ecological Ethics” ................................................ 127 4.3 Evaluating the implicit analogical argument ........................................................ 130 4.4 Identifying critical factors and possible negative analogies ................................. 140 4.5 The relevance of “originary” historical-cultural factors....................................... 142 4.6 Critical differences between biomedical and „ecological patients‟ ...................... 145 4.7 The relevance of on-going social-political influences ......................................... 159 4.8 Chapter conclusion ............................................................................................... 160 iv Chapter 5 Norton‟s Sustainability: Integrating environmental pragmatism and adaptive ecosystem management .................................................................................... 163 5.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 163 5.2 Norton‟s theoretical model for “Sustainability” ................................................... 163 5.3 Adaptive ecosystem management ........................................................................ 173 5.4 Evaluating Norton‟s model .................................................................................. 181 5.5 Identifying critical factors .................................................................................... 195 5.6 Chapter conclusion ............................................................................................... 216 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 220 References ............................................................................................................................ 239 v List of figures and tables Figures 3.1: Bartha‟s simple tabular representation of the relation of terms within 106 an analogical argument 4.1: Tabular representation of the causal direction of the prior association 133 5.1 Tabular representation of the causal and analogical relations in 193 Darwin‟s analogy between artificial and natural selection Tables 3.1 An example of Hesse‟s tabular representation of an analogical 99 argument 3.2 Bartha‟s “augmented tabular representation” of an analogical 101 argument” 3.3 Schematic tabular representation of the “top-down analogy” 113 4.1 Tabular reconstruction of Minteer & Collins‟ informal analogical 131 argument 4.2 Tabular representation of the potential negative analogies 141 5.1 Tabular representation of proposed analogical argument 183 vi Acknowledgments I would most especially like to thank Philip Catton