Part 2-Conservation, Management, Ethics: Wilson-Model Ethics System 239 Section B-Developing Management Programs

Model Ethics System For Resolving Cave Conservation Dilemmas John M. Wilson

The exploration of ethical theory in this chapter provides guidelines and methods to assist cavers in determining whether actions are ethical. An ethical act is one that should be performed, and this discussion seeks to explain how to make ethical decisions in certain. and cave related situations. Ethical acts are also compatible with the stated highest value and its component values.

Model, Methods, and Guidelines Methodology is this Discovering what is ethical can be arduous and risky. Effective use of these chapter's primary six guidelines resolves most ethical dilemmas: focus, but five other guidelines are also Use appropriate methods. described. Clarify primary values. Obtain relevant knowledge. Create effective solutions. Avoid factual and logical error. Facilitate compliance.

Methodology is this chapter's primary focus, but the other five guidelines are also described and further study is recommended. Classic ethical methods are described and unified in the Appropriate Methods Ethics System. This system is a model for cavers who face tough conservation decisions. As the difficulty of the dilemma increases, methods that require more time, research, calculation, and evaluation are applied. These four methods (rules, contracts, objective methods, and combined objective and intuitive methods) are based on principles from several major schools of Western ethical philosophy. Although proponents of each school of ethical philosophy may apply their model to all situations, most models are easy to use within only certain situations. The Appropriate Methods Ethics System helps cave restorers and conservationists who need to resolve dilemmas, but who lack the time or inclination to review ethics philosophy. This system offers methods, not a list of what is right and wrong. These methods can be used to help cavers analyze ethical conflicts and identify those in which inappropriate method- ology is a factor in an unresolved problem. A thorough discussion of compliance is beyond the scope of this chapter; however, the degree of compliance with ethical proposals can be improved by using appropriate methodology to achieve ethical results.

Appropriate Methods Ethics System

The Appropriate Methods Ethics System uses a sequence of four methods, or levels, to evaluate conservation proposals and determine whether an act 240 Cave Conservation and Restoration

is ethical. Each system level should be used until it leads to an acceptable solution or until it fails; however, any of the methods, except the first, can be used to resolve any ethical problem. Level one uses only established rules, laws, and procedures; therefore, it is not applicable when a new solution is required to resolve a problem. The levels are proposed in a sequence that suggests using the least expensive, and easiest first. If a method is inadequate, one uses the next level. Using the appropriate The Appropriate method usually offers better solutions, and it saves time and effort. Methods Ethics When there is no proposal, one must be developed. The proposal could be System uses a to do nothing. Developing creative proposals to solve ethical dilemmas is sequence of four often an essential component of the conflict resolution process. methods, or levels, The First Level - Using What Is Known to evaluate First-level or normal decisions require actions that are compatible with conservation appropriate practices and customary relevant laws, rules, and regulations. proposals and One reviews a proposed act for compliance with customary practices and determine whether applicable laws. The first level goal is to find an appropriate solution from the present knowledge base. This contrasts with the goal of the other three an act is ethical levels, which is to create new solutions. We make most of our decisions using the first-level method, because doing what we know tends to be intuitive, easy, and quick. Rather than inventing the correct solution for every new situation, people do what is legal and expected based on law and custom. First-level methods are the standard operating procedure. First-level methods may be in the form of a written law, an informal custom, or a combination. The advantages of using the first-level methods include reasonable evaluation cost and less thought. In this level, people apply their knowledge to predictable situations. Successful results developed using higher levels are added to the first level, and they become part of the public repertoire of standard ethical behaviors

Case Study 1 - An Easy Example Submitted by the author Several cavers discover acts of vandalism in one of their favorite . Fifteen and are broken and left on the ground. The group decides to repair the damage.

Analysis. The group will use the most appropriate means to make the repairs, as explained in this book. The cave owner understands what is involved and wants the restoration performed. No laws prohibit any part of the planned restoration. The expense is mostly in labor willingly volun- teered, but other expenses are being paid by a friend for whom the amount is nominal. The decision to restore the cave in this situation is deceptively easy because there are few conflicting interests and no ethical conflicts. There may be better alternatives for using the resources that will be committed to this cave restoration; however, because the emotional impetus to act is not likely to be transferable, these altematives probably would not benefit from diversion to another project.

Rules and Transition Problems Harm or an injustice may be caused when laws and procedures are applied inappropriately. Some of the worst ,ethical behavior has occurred in the name of law, tradition, and authority. The expressions "I was doing what I was told,""1 was doing things the way they have always been done," or "'We have rules and cannot make an exception" typify rule-obedience inflexibility. The transition from standard to other levels of ethical reason- ing can be difficult. This tirstlevel of ethical procedures is based on rules, not the conse- Part 2-Conservation, Management, Ethics: Wilson-Model Ethics System 241 quence of an act. Most people recognize that ifbad things are happening, and if the present rules are not helping, something more should be done. Sometimes people are unable to react because of their belief or faith in the law. There are three reasons people comply with laws and rules regardless of the consequences:

Some people do not care about the outcome or are unconcerned with ethical behavior. This first level of Some people believe in the absolute authority or absolute correctness ethical procedures is ofa rule or law in general. Ethicists refer to this school of thought as based on rules, not deontological, from the Greek word dean, which means, "that which is binding." The concept of duty or obligation is crucial for deontologists. For the consequence of them, murder, lying, and vandalizing a cave arc always wrong, and indirect an act. Most people consequences of an act are not usually important. For example, mitigating recognize that if bad circumstances such as lying to a cave vandal about the location of a cave is things are happen- not acceptable. ing, and if the Some people may have inaccurate information or make a logical error. present rules are not Case Study 2 - A Lost Cave helping, something Submitted by the author 'more should be A cave photographer has documented his love of caves with many out- done. standing photographs. One cave in Virginia had a section of rare, delicate mineral formations that he had captured on film with award-winning photographs. Many years ago, this cave was beginning to suffer vandalism and the local cavers wanted to place a gate near the entrance to keep out the vandals. The photographer vigorously opposed the gating of his favorite cave. His argument was simple: cave gates are ugly and unnatural, and they destroy the aesthetic value of the cave, and people should not change caves. The photographer was unable to prevent the gate, but delayed its installation, and vandals destroyed the mineral formations before the gate was installed.

Analysis. When cave vandalism occurred in the caves he loved, the photographer was most upset. The photographer is unwilling to use another method to resolve the problem, even when it is clear that his ways are failing. He is comfortable using only current laws and beliefs. When asked how he would stop the vandalism, his suggestion was to use long jail terms for cave vandals. He was deeply intluenced by the psychological impact of cave gates. He is a "'rules" type person. He believed that his obligation is to do no wrong. If each person followed the law, a gate would not be neces- sary. His arguments are internally consistent. He believes that right is absolute and right conduct does not depend on the circumstances or consequences, only the intent to do right matters. This belief is referred to as ethical absolutism, and it is part of the Natural Rights school of philosophy. This philosophy says that as long as he acted rightly, he is not responsible for failed results. Critics of Natural Rights would contend that he is also committing the naturalfallacy error by using the natural state of the cave to assert how it should be protected.

Changing Methods The Appropriate Methods Ethics System applies the best ethics methods to a situation. It suggests using a higher-level method when the present methods produce unsatisfactory results, such as when two acts or their consequences conflict with each other or with higher values, cause unfair- ness, injustice, or unnecessary harm to someone or something. For ex- ample, property right laws offer a legal justification for cave owners to sell the mineral formations from their cave although this conflicts with natural 242 Cave Conservation and Restoration

resource conservation values.

The Second Level - Contracts At the second Icvel, it may be necessary to relinquish a law, rule, or agreement and replace it with a new contract. This level requires people to develop contracts, usually through negotiation. When used appropriately, negotiating compares valid competing interests fairly, and it can be quick and effective. Many people are familiar with using contracts, and they can reach a reasonable agreement through negotiation with minimal time and effort. One way to evaluate the fairness of a contract is to imagine that you will have to live with the consequences of the solution, but that you do not At the second level, know which party you will be aner the solution is adopted. That is, have each participant in the contlict pretend that they occupy the role of the it may be necessary other party and must accept the solution. to relinquish a law, In second-level negotiations, justice is often the major goal of the rule, or agreement contract. When justice is the primary goal, the goal should be made and replace it with a explicit, but the parties may agree to other primary values. Ifno primary new contract. This value is stated, self-interest is the implied primary value when people are level requires people negotiating. Level two is a simple version of overlapping consensus, which was to develop contracts, developed by John Rawls (1971). In its most advanced form, competing usually through interests are compared objectively, with each advocate unaware of which negotiation. course of action would eventually be beneficial to him. The crucial compo- nent of the system of overlapping consensus of basic rights is the Veil of Secrecy. Philosophers call variations of this negotiating approach con/roc/arion. Most common decisions are resolved with level-one procedures and rules. When level-one methods are inadequate, one may expect to resolve most remaining problems at level two. In most cases, it is simpler to achieve a contract than to meet the fact-finding and calculation standards required in level three, the next level, so most people will attempt to exhaust contract techniques before using level three.

Case Study 3 - The Terminator Submitted by Diana E. Northup This kind of conflict has arisen in the exploration of New Mexico's . The explorers find a new area with big exploration potential and big scientific potential. Because the cave's microbial commu- nity is potentially easily affected by human visitation, scientists ask that an area be designated off limits until it can be studied. Such study can last from one to five years, a duration that may be perceived as an eternity to an explorer with a hot lead. The scientists are called "terminators," because they terminate explora- tion in certain areas of the cave. If scientists do not work with the explor- ers, then explorers may not reveal wonderful new areas for science. The situation is like walking a tightrope for both parties.

Analysis. Lechuguilla cavers are developing a set of rules for resolving the sometimes conflicting interests of science and exploration. They appear to have successfully developed contracts to balan~e the gains. Knowledge and pleasure are gained from exploration while scientific limitations delay some gratification to both the explorers and the scientists.

Case Study 4 - What Do You Get from Discovering a Cave? Submitted by Douglas M. Medville Caver group A discovers a virgin cave that contains attractive . The group explores the cave, practicing leave-no-trace ethics. But not being surveyors, they do not map the cave. A few weeks later, caver group B Part 2-Conservation, Management, Ethics: Wilson-Model Ethics System 243 independently finds the cave. Thinking it is a virgin cave, group B surveys it, leaving what they feel to be unobtrusive survey stations: a carbide dot here. a mctal tag at a station junction there. A few days later, caver group A returns to the cave and sees the evidence of group B's survey. Group A feels that whoever did the survey has diminished the attractiveness of the cave. Group A does not want group B to fe-cnter the cave. Group A seals the entrance, preventing group B from continuing their survey. Through a third party, groups A and B learn of each other's existence and communicate. Group 8 wishes to have the cave's entrance unsealed so they can continue their survey and promises to remove all traces of their first survey if it otfends group A. Group A is unwilling to unblock the entrance, citing a desire to protect the cave from further visitation, both by group B and other cavers whom they feel would diminish the cave's attractiveness. In addition, they express a concern that group B's photographs and map, ifcirculated in the caving community, will increase the visitation rate. The cave is on public land and there are no private landowner considerations. Neither group owns the cave. Each group found the cave independently. 80th groups feel that they have a stake in the conservation of the cave. Group A wants to see the cave protected, even to the point of making it impossible (or very difficult) for others to enter the cave. Group B believes that another group should not assume access control of a cave that they do not own, especially since group 8 found the cave on their own and are engaged in a survey. Finally, group A feels that they have explored the entire cave, while group 8, through their survey, knows of passages that group A did not see and plans to survey these passages.

Analysis. What should be done? Who is correct? This type of problem is ideal for level-two methods. Part of the difficulty is that each of these groups believes it has some right to or ownership of the cave. Many cavcrs believe that certain ownership rights such as exploration or access control belong to the discoverer. Property owners may not agree. Group A is claiming rights to the cave that are beyond those usually given to cave discoverers in the United States. A facilitator should be able to help these two groups understand that the Many cavers believe best interest is served by developing a mutually beneficial proposal. Such that certain owner- solutions might involve each group in the future management of the cave. ship rights such as All will benefit from an approach that offers the legal owner (the govern- exploration or ment) something in the future, such as their speleological expertise. The cave owner may benefit from these services enough to enter into a contract access control, and grant certain privileges to either or both of these groups. Like the belong to the discovery of gold in a new place, it is difficult to control the exploration of discoverer. Property a cave. owners may not agree. Case Study 5 - Mud Filled Caves Submitted by the author In Alaska, a island with extensive old-growth forest offers an excel- lent source of timber, which is being harvested using clear-cut techniques. The island receives more than 250 centimeters (about 100 inches) of rain a year. Once an area is logged, erosion removes much of the topsoil and fills caves with mud and other debris. The lumber company agrees to leave a O.5-hectare (l.2-acre) uncut buffer around each cave entrance.

Analysis. This plan was not successful because a O.S-hectare (1.2-acre) stand of trees was too small to withstand high winds, and most of the trees in these butfer areas were blown down. Furthermore, the island forests do not seem to recover from clear-cut lumbering. The combination of poor 244 Cave Conservation and Restoration

soil, erosion, and wind has prevented the regeneration of the forest. Log- ging on this island provides a onc-time economic gain. This agreement was reached through negotiation, which supposedly considered the interests of all parties. Employment was stated as an important factor when making the case for continued logging. With this type of negotiation, there are few clear and immediate losers. The primary loss is of the common forest environment. It is difficult to convince people with direct economic interests that exploiting commonly held resources will cause indirect harm and economic loss in the long run. This type of conflict is better resolved using the consequential methods. When no one articulates an interest, level-two methods are less success- ful. By focusing on articulated interests, level-two methods may not find other wrongs until subsequent events expose the inadequacies. People not yet born, other species, and commonly-held resources like caves, air, and oceans are examples of unrepresented constituencies. The limitations of level-two contracts occur when negotiated solutions equally protect the interests of people close to the situation but not the interests of more distant people. Factors unconsidered by the current negotiators can weaken a contract. This is particularly true when common resources are allocated. Not all -intentioned, negotiated resolutions have desirable consequences.

The Third Level-Consequences Using Objective Methods This level requires adding the advantages and subtracting the disadvantages of an act's consequences. It involves considering present and future benefits and costs and comparing factors using a common denominator. Comparing apples to oranges requires the use of a common denominator, such as the level of sweetness or the monetary value of each fruit. This method relies on objective calculation. Cost benefit analysis and risk assessment are examples of appropriate methodologies for this level, and success is determined when a standard is achieved. For consequential ethical methods, one compares the overall values of different actions in tenns of their compatibility with the primary value. (For This level requires examples, refer to the section below on consequential highest values.) Benefit is measured in terms of how an act contributes to the attainment of adding the the primary value, and accurate measurement of relevant data is important. advantages and This method can be important in allocating scarce resources. Wise, appro- subtracting the priate, and effective use of resources is in society's interest, and it contrib- disadvantages of an utes to the creation of additional resources and conservation of irreplace- act's consequences. able natural assets. It involves Exercise 1 considering present How would one devise a common denominator to enable a comparison of and future benefits the caving experience in a cave with economic development of the land and costs, and above it? comparing factors Level three's objectivity requires that values be compared with a stan- using a common dard unit of measurement. Different ethicists have created terms to use for comparing value. Utilitarianism, for example, employs "units of utility" as denominator the common denominator. While this may help people with negative emotional associations with the concept of money as an ethical tool, creating a new standard will cause additional work in establishing relative value. The development of world markets has resulted in structures that regularly calculate values for exchanging or insuring almost everything, thus reducing the amount of work in assigning common denominators. By using an established practice, people making level-three calculations have less work. They must still include relevant factors, and they may have to assign some values that have no market, such as the value of free time. If the thought of using money as a common denominator for ethical calcula- Part 2-Conservation, Management, Ethics: Wilson-Model Ethics System 245 tions is not appealing, other common denominators are possible. Within the cave conservation community, there may be agreement on a goal but not on the ways to accomplish the goal. Using level-three methods to evaluate the effectiveness of differing cave-protection decisions can unite people behind a cave conservation solution. After applying all level-three methods, if the problem remains unre- solved, if the value is impossible to measure accurately, or if significant incommensurable values occur, one should use the level-four methods. One After applying all should not expect to use level four often, and returning to level two might level-three methods, be better. Another possibility is that level-three methods are successful, but there is a compliance or marketing problem. if the problem remains unresolved, Case Study 6 - Cave Modification and the Scientist if the value is Submitted by the author impossible to A meticulous scientist who studies caves has worked many years for the measure accurately, geologic survey of a midwestern state. He established an elaborate and effective meteorological experiment in lee-water Cave that included a or if significant number of water level recording locations. Icc-water Cave noods often, and incommensurable it is a significant hydrological information source. The information from values occur, one his study advanced the hydrological understanding of the area and ofTered a should use the level- way to make accurate predictions of dangerous high water levels in the four methods. cave. This scientist is quiet and shy. He readily volunteers his services and talents for opportunities to advance the study of caves. While friendly, he is no politician and not particularly effective at swaying group opinion. He appears uncomfortable when conflicts arise. In one-to-one situations, he is personable. He worked effectively with the cave owner and established a relationship that allowed him and his to explore, map, and study Ice-water Cave. When a European scientist approached him with a request to measure spelean growth in the midwestern U.S. over an extended period, Ice-water Cave seemed a good choice with its large, active speleothems that appeared to be old. An inconspicuous place was available for a test boring. The 6-millimeter (about O.25-inch diameter) bore could be studied, and most of the drilled core would be returned once it was analyzed. Plans were made to imple- ment the drilling. The grotto otlicially manages lee-water Cave. The grotto chairman was concerned that this drilling was vandalism, and he made it clear that he thought taking this formation core was wrong. In his mind, right and wrong are easy to distinguish because breaking or marring cave formations is spelled out as vandalism in state cave law and by cave organizations. The drilling was performed, and the core was studied and returned to its original place. The chairman was incensed that the grotto now had a cave vandal as a member. He persisted with character attacks on the scientist, who was bewildered, and after several months the shy scientist withdrew from the grotto. Since he was no longer a part of the management oflce- water Cave, he removed his scientific equipment from the cave.

Analysis. Drilling holes in speleothems is cave vandalism by most mea- sures, but this type of scientific study is permitted by most cave laws in the United States. The ethical exception claimed by the scientist is that the intent of this small modification will potentially accomplish a net good, even ifno new insight or knowledge is gained-a level-three argument. Most people acknowledge the value of scientific research. The principal parties cited no established law or custom that resolved this issue to the satisfaction of both parties. Current state cave laws may resolve this issue in favor of the scientific research. Because the chairman and at least a few others were unconvinced, level-three methods arc used here as 246 Cave Conservation and Restoration

an example of how this conflict is easy to resolve. What is lost by taking the sample? The physical losses arc a small amount of calcite, a damaged formation, wear and tear on the cave, along with the expense of performing the study. To allow quantitative compari- sons, the small financial loss can be calculated. The removal of the mineral core does not harm the biological habitat. The aesthetic loss is small because the drilled area is inconspicuous (even if multiplied by the loss all subsequent visitors would experience). The scientist might claim that is unlikely that most people visiting this cave would experience measurable loss. Because the cave is rarely visited, the total 1055 to people is relatively small, maybe even zero. The gain to society may be training the researcher, or some significant new information may be obtained. How much this one piece of information may help is difficult to determine; however, it is likely to be greater than zero.

Case Study 7 • Caving in the Wilderness Submitted by Douglas M. Medville Cavers are engaged in the exploration, survey, and study of caves in wilderness areas in USDA National Forests. Some of the caves contain streams flowing down pits. To facilitate safe exploration and survey, the cavers set bolts at the drops to keep the ropes and cavers out of the water. Citing a concern for keeping wilderness areas pristine, and having seen scars and bolts left in cliffs by rock climbers, the Forest Service holds public meetings on a proposed rule that would forbid bolting in wilderness areas. Members of the caving community attend the meetings and oppose the proposed rule, citing safety concerns and the value of bolting in limited circumstances to conduct scientific studies, carry out resource inventories, and survey the caves. They point out that the bolts are invisible to the general public, but they are willing to forego using power equipment to place bolts in wilderness areas. Following the public meetings, the Forest Service promulgates a rule in the Federal Register prohibiting the placement of bolts in wilderness areas in USDA National Forests, citing conservation ethics and a desire to keep such areas as natural as possible. While their major concern is the place- ment of rock climbing bolts on outdoor cliffs, they make it illegal for cavers to place bolts in caves too. Is the Forest Service correct in its rule making? Does keeping caves as natural as possible outweigh the benefits of placing bolts in caves? How important is this naturalism, especially when the bolting furthers exploration and scientific studies that may benefit cave conservation and management?

Rule-based Analysis. Medville describes the classic example of rule obedience by a procedures may fail rule-based authority. The Forest Service followed its procedures correctly to accomplish what and did not come up with a good solution for cavers and land managers. Rule-based procedures may fail to do what is right. Resolution of this is best. contlict appears to have failed using level-two methods. Maintaining wilderness areas as natural may be a primary value, instead ofa goal. If the Forest Service considers some artificial objects as accept- able in wildemess areas because they contribute to accomplishing higher values such as safety, long-term preservation, or gains in knowledge, then this value can be resolved. The best results in this type of problem require that a solution resolve the problem for both sides. One possible solution would be to recognize that climbing aids in caves perform a different function than they do on the surface and that the improved safety might help maintain the wilderness. For example, the rescue of an injured caver in a wilderness area could result in greater damage and the introduction of unnatural items to the wilderness and cave. Once a new proposal is Part 2-Conservation, Management, Ethics: Wilson-Model Ethics System 247 developed, the advantages and disadvantages can be calculated using level- three methods. The natural fallacy may be a factor in this case, as might be conflicting primary values or inappropriate primary values.

The Fourth Level-Consequences Using Objective and Intuitive Methods Dilemmas may require using both objective and intuitive ethics methods. At level four, all of the consequences of an act, including dissimilar values and incompatible measurements are considered. The situation may deter- mine the weights assigned to each variable. This level should be used when the solution attained using the third level is unacceptable, because the Dilemmas may results conflict with the highest value. require using both Unlike with the third level, some factors have no common denominator objective and and must be compared subjectively. Third-level information and conclu- intuitive ethics sions may be used, but the information from such research is tempered by methods. At level invoking appropriate intuitive values. The objective and intuitive level is particularly useful when some four, all of the consequences are difficult to quantify; thus, consequences are measured by consequences of an how an act contributes to the attainment of the highest value. The process act are considered, of subjectively comparing incommensurable values is subject to unverifi- including dissimilar able errors, because there may not be an objective standard. Such a values and discrepancy may be an acceptable risk in complicated problems. incompatible Exercise 2 measurements. A cave that has a history of use by recreational cavers has come under the control of a cave conservation organization. The cave was a significant habitat for endangered bats, but the bat population has declined over the years to almost nothing. Bat censuses have reported a few individuals of an endangered resident bat species in the cave. Knowledgeable bat scientists have stated that if there were no cavers in the cave, the bats might return. Knowledgeable cavers have stated that it would be diflicult to keep the recreational cavers out of the cave, and some of these recreational cavers have threatened to remove barriers that might block the entrance. There is ready access from the highway to the cave. But no one lives in the immediate area, and no one is available to guard the entrance. Using level-four methods, develop a proposal for this conservation group-a proposal that is compatible with its charter. Their charter is similar to those ofNSS cave conservancies, and it is compatible with the conservation policy of the NSS.

Beyond Methods - What is Important?

Some ethical dilemmas may be unresolved due to incompatible primary values. In such cases, people temporarily accept a truce. Ethics methods may achieve these results, but they will not resolve conflicts between incompatible primary values. While good methodology is important for resolving ethical dilemmas, it supplies only the how to, not the why. This discussion of primary values is only a starting point for understanding their use. The Appropriate Methods Ethical System is most effective when the primary value is explicit; it does not predetermine a set of values. People using this system need to be familiar with primary values, and they need to know when to recognize them as factors in conflicts. Some ethics systems are associated with certain primary values. For example, for utilitarians, happiness or the greatest good for the greatest number is the primary value. Most other schools of thought propose primary values. 248 Cave Conservation and Restoration

Because the reasons for conserving and restoring caves are likely to be similar to other types of environmental conservation, it is important for cave-interested people to explain how cave c'onservation applies to a broader environmental statement. The selection of what is most important may have a profound elfect on the ethical solutions obtained. People have many different primary values, and sometimes a person or group may have morc than one value or conflicting primary values. In other cases, new values become more important. The concept of cave rights provides an example of how primary values might change.

Do caves or other Cave Rights natural features have Do caves or other natural features have rights outside of human interests; rights outside of that is, does a cave have a stake'? Reference to caves also refers to signifi- human interests; that cant natural features in this section. While caves have great value and enhance human and other life, do they have the right to exist, and do they is, does a cave have merit preservation and protection regardless of human interests? Do caves a stake'? have rights that equal or exceed human rights? Some philosophers maintain that the concept of cave rights is an error, because caves have legal protections but not human rights. Attributing that which is exclusively human to non-human animals or inanimate objects might be an error; however, any person, group, or institution may hold as true any set of primary values. Theoretically, an ethical system could maintain that caves have a stake and could have rights equivalent to those of humans. Some of such a system's requirements and considerations are presented as an example of factors involved when elevating a subsidiary value to a primary value. There are two ways rights are bestowed on caves, by deity or nature, or by humans through institutions like governments. If a person believes that caves have rights equivalent to human rights granted by nature or deity, it is a religious belief. Therefore, this value is a matter offaith and is not subject to objective verification. lfcaves had legal rights equal to those of people, these rights would need to be compatible with other highest law so that it could be rationalized. Although some people maintain that rights are inalienable, continuing enforcement is only as effective as the people and institutions that uphold them. Institutions can withdraw rights. Human rights or their equivalents are not granted to other living things or objects, and no serious effort exists to grant legal rights to caves; however, there is a movement to grant some limited human rights to certain animals. The accepted approach to cave protection is to establish legal protections for caves and institute other measures such as education, active surveil- lance, and physical barriers. However, human conservation interests, not concern for caves because of intrinsic worth, generally motivate such protections. People select primary values based on their beliefs. For these values to influence public policy or social behavior, others must adopt them. The following questions may help define one's beliefs about cave rights. What is the purpose of a cave? Why do caves need rights? Why should caves have rights as opposed to protections? Should people use caves for eco- nomic gain? Is cave modification and damage acceptable when rescuing a person from a cave? If so, how much is acceptable? Does the level of cave protection depend on the significance of the cave? What sacrifices should be made to protect caves? Should caving be banned in some caves'! Who should pay for cave protection? Who represents the caves?

Exercise 3 Use level-three methods and develop two ethical proposals to govern the sale of speleothems by cave owners. The first proposal is to be compatible Part 2-Conservation, Management, Ethics: Wilson-Model Ethics System 249 with individual freedom as a highest value, and the second is to be compat- ible with an environmental school.

Identification of the Primary Values For exercises in identifying primary values, several terms need clarifica- tion. This section describes primary value. Also included are abbreviated statements for consequential and nonconsequential highest values.

Criteria for a Primary Value A primary value is a statement of what is most important. It describes what is most important to a species, group, or individual. A primary value A primary value has no components that are in conflict with each statement has no other. When there are conflicts between two components of a highest value, components that are then at least one of them is a secondary value. Ifan ethical system has conflicting highest values, then solving some ethical problems may not be in conflict with possible. each other. A primary value helps clarify the purpose of ethical methods and offers a standard on which to evaluate ethical behavior. Primary values may be absolute or evaluated by their consequences. Primary values are in competition for acceptance.

Consequential Highest Values Acts should contribute to achieving the greatest good for the greatest number of people-promoted by utilitarians and many humanitarians. Acts should contribute to achieving the greatest good for humankind- promoted by some environmentalists. Acts should maximize freedoms of individuals-promoted by the natural rights school of thought. Equal justice is to be available to all people-promoted by some contractarians. Acts should promote the health of the ecosystem-promoted by Aldo Leopold (1970) and some environmentalists.

Nonconsequential Highest Values Nature determines moral acts and these acts have intrinsic value- Natural Law. God determines moral acts-most religious law is duty based and has different primary values. These systems cannot use levels three and four, and sometimes have more than one highest value. Acts should follow the Ten Commandments. Fletcher (1977) makes a consequential and plausible argument for agape (love) as an absolute highest Christian value. He brings Christian doctrine under a unified statement, which is expressed in the first two of the Ten Commandments.

Errors

Successful application ofthe Appropriate Methods Ethics System depends on avoiding error. Some logic texts identify logical errors and fallacies, but oversimplified. doctrinaire statements can also be a cause of error. Ex- amples of doctrinaire statements are: job preservation is paramount; common resources are available for anyone who can take them; and cave owners can do anything they want with their caves. Two common fallacies committed in cave and environmental conflicts merit detailed discussion ..Following are some examples.

Error Example 1 - Denial Denial may be in two forms: A person denies that there is a problem or an injustice or that wrong 250 Cave Conservation and Restoration has aecurre or WI 1occur. An example 0 em3 ISw en grotto eaders endorse the social ostracism of a caver at grotto functions because of trivial personality characteristics or differences in opinion. A person denies that there is a need to use an ethical method other than a rule-based authority to solve a problem. At one time, photographs depicting cavers without hard hats were prohibited in the NSS photo salon. Recently, photographs that depict a person touching a cave mineral formation have been banned from salons and publications. In general, these may be good rules; however, there are valid exceptions with good explana- tions. When a person maintains that there are no valid exceptions, denial may be a likely symptom.

Error Example 2 - The Natural Fallacy Philosophers have sought to derive basic truths from nature. By applying fundamental truths to ethical dilemmas, they believe that they can deduce and justify ethical principles. While this method is essential for ethical systems to be compatible with natural law and to avoid fundamental errors, Nallirallaws people sometimes mistake these natural laws for natural events. describe what is Natura/laws describe what is always true under certain circumstances, always true under such as gravity, chemical reactions, human needs, and so on. Natural events certain appear to be random occurrences that mayor may not happen the same way at any time, such as human wants. Using nature to devise an ethical code circumstances. involves the risk of using a random event as a moral principle, the Natural Nalliral evenls Fallacy. appear to be random The statement "'cave modification is wrong because the modifications are occurrences that not natural" is an example that most philosophers would identify as a mayor may not natura/fallacy. The error is in using the natural state of the cave to assert that it has ethical standing that prevents an action. This natural fallacy is happen the same defined as deriving claims about what ought to be done from claims about way at any time. what is the case. It assumes that the natural state of a cave is the best state. Using nature to To avoid the natural fallacy in establishing an ethical principle, one could devise an ethical show the event is the result of a natural law and not a chance event. To code involves the ethically maintain that a natural feature should not be changed or an risk of using a organism should remain in its present environment, one could show that they have significant value beyond mere existence. The next case study random event as a demonstrates how this error can be a subtle part of more complex issues. moral principle. Case Study 8- Cave Restorationist Versus Cave Preservationist Submitted by Joseph C. Douglas One pitfall in contemporary cave resource protection is that conservation means different things to different people, and some of these meanings are in tension with each other. There may even be conflicting primary values within cave conservation. For some, biological protection of caves is the ultimate value, while others may stress the protection of geological features. Some cavers think primarily of aesthetic values when they undertake conservation work, and others focus on cultural or historical resource protection. For some, responsible multiple-use of caves is para- mount, or recreational and educational values are emphasized. There is considerable overlap between the objectives of use and protection, and cooperation is possible (and necessary). However, when the emphasis is on underground preservation, or when preservation gives way to restoration, value-based conflict can appear. Cave conservation, preservation, and restoration are important and need to be considered carefully before taking action. Restoration involving environmental modification may conflict with preservation. Aesthetic restoration is sometimes in tension with biological pr~servation and historical preservation. Removing old wood and even some types of trash from a cave improves the appearance of the space, but it may damage the cave's biota. Similarly, restoration projects that involve graffiti removal can Part 2--Conservation, Management, Ethics: Wilson-Model Ethics System 251 damage cultural resources. While graftiti can be ugly, it may contain or overlay important prehistoric or historic resources. Awareness of the variety of important resources in caves, willingness to learn about them, and communication between speleologists with different values and expertise can help ameliorate conflict in the cave conservation community.

Summary

A model that employs four methods (rules, contracts, objective methods, and combined objective and intuitive methods) can be used to resolve cavc- related ethical conflicts. By having four methods, onc is more likely to find a solution to ethical dilemmas. Identification of primary values and avoiding fallacies and error are crucial factors for conflict resolution.

Cited References Fletcher J. 1977. Situation ethics: The new morality. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. 176 p. Leopold A. 1970. A Sand County Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River. New York: Ballantine Books. 295 p. [First published in A model that 1949.] employs four Rawls J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University methods (rules, Press. 538 p. contracts, objective methods, and combined objective Additional Reading Barnes J, editor. 1995. The Complete Works of Aristotle. Princeton: and intuitive Princeton University Press. 2256 p. methods) can be Bayles M, Henley K. 1989. Right Conduct. New York: Random House. used to resolve cave- Elliot R. 1997. Faking Nature: The Ethics of Environmental Restoration. related ethical London and New York: Routledge. 192 p. conflicts. Graham 0. 1988. Contemporary Social Philosophy. Oxford: Basil Blaskwell, Ltd. Gregor M, editor. 1996. Practical Philosophy by Immanuel Kant. Cam- bridge University Press. 664 p. Griffin J. 1986. Wel/-heing. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 403 p. Hare R. 1981. Moral Thinking. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hargrove E. 1989. Foundations a/Environmental Ethics. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall. 229 p. Hargrove EC, editor. 1992. The Animal Rights/Environmental Ethics Debote: The Environmental Perspective. Albany (NY): SUNY Press. 273 p. Hegel G, Knox TM, translator. 1967. Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Ncw York: Oxford University Press. 377 p. Kohlberg L. 1984. The Psychology of Moral Development. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers. Leena V. 1997. The Intrinsic Value of Nature. Amsterdam and Atlanta (GA): Rodolpi. McClelland D, editor. 1982. The Development ofSociul Maturity. New York: Irvington Publishers. 225 p. Mill JS. 1967 Reprint. A System of Logic: Rutiocinative and Inductive. London: Longmans, Green and Co, Ltd. 644 p. Newton LH, Dillingham CK. 1993. Watershed,: Classic Cases in Environ- mental Ethics. Belmont (CA): Wadsworth. 249 p. Norton BG. editor. 1986. The Preservation of Species: The Value of Biological Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 305 p. Passmore J. 1974. Man s Responsibility jilr Nature: Ecological Problems and Western TradWons. New York: Scribner's. (Also see: 1980. 2nd ed. London: Duckworth.) 227 p. 252 Cave Conservation and Restoration

Peacock K. 1996. Living with the Earth: An lntraduction to Enviranmental Philosophy. Toronto: Harcourt Brace Canada. Pojrnan LP. 1994. Enviranmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Applica- tion. Boston: Jones & Bartlett. 560 p. Schmidtz D, Willott E, editors. 2002. Enviranmental Ethics: What Really Matters, What Really Works. New York: Oxford University Press. 624 p. Taylor PW. 1986. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Enviranmental Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 342 p. Wenz PS. 2001. Enviranmental Ethics Today. New York: Oxford University Press. 326 p. Wenz PS. 1988. Enviranmental Justice. Albany: State University of New York Press. 384 p.