The Philosophy NewsletterL for Studentsantern Volume 15, Number 2 Spring 2014 Philosophy and the Environment Given our increasing awareness of anthropogenic says we have to be so stupid in pursuit of our well-being.” climate change, and of the other harms our way of life On his view, anthropocentrism, properly understood, does causes to other inhabitants of Earth, and to the Earth not portend the destruction of nature, but instead implies itself, it should not surprise you to learn that many phi- that we ought to secure rather far-reaching and robust losophers have something to say about the environment. policies aimed at protecting the natural environmental. Even the very earliest philosophers were concerned Nevertheless, many environmental philosophers about the environment, asking questions about how the reject even enlightened anthropocentrism. Some non- human being might fit into the order of the cosmos in anthropocentric approaches seek to extend traditional its supernatural and natural elements. Many Modern moral boundaries to include some non-human entities. philosophers attempted to separate the natural from the For example, Peter Singer argues that morality is fun- supernatural and to provide a scientific account of nature damentally about promoting happiness and reducing and our relationship to it. Today, philosophers are show- suffering in the world. Since many animals have the ing a renewed interest in thinking about the place of the capacity to suffer, he concludes that many animals count human and non-human animal in regard to nature. too, morally speaking. Others have developed Kantian Contemporary environmental philosophy has been and Aristotelian/Virtue approaches. an academic discipline since the 1970s. It fosters discus- Some environmental philosophers offer more radical sion of the appropriate ways to understand and deal with approaches to understanding our relationship with the our relationship to the environment. Many different ap- non-human, natural world. Among the more influential proaches have been developed including environmental alternatives are ecofeminism and deep ecology. Ecofemi- ethics, environmental justice, ecofeminism, environmental nists like Karen War- aesthetics, environmental theology, and ecophenomenol- ren and Val Plum- IN THIS ISSUE ogy. Here at UWG, some of the philosophy faculty are wood argue that there engaged with these debates and have provided brief de- are deep connections scriptions here of some key areas of philosophic interest. between domination Philosopher’s Wisdom Anthropocentrism is the view that only human beings of women and domi- have moral value, and that other things, such as animals, nation of nature. They Summer 2014 plants, and ecosystems, have value only if human beings seek to expose and Course Descriptions need or want them. On this view, human beings have dismantle the value “inherent” value (we are valuable by nature and regardless dualisms—male as Fall 2014 of whether anyone needs or wants us) while other things opposed to female, Course Descriptions have mere “instrumental” value, value only as tools or as human as opposed to means for achieving some human good. Immanuel Kant nature, mind as op- held a view like this. While many environmental ethicists posed to body—that Meeting of the Minds reject anthropocentrism, and argue that some animals, have become cultur- plants, or even ecosystems have inherent value too, oth- ally institutionalized Upcoming Undergraduate ers defend “enlightened” forms of anthropocentrism. As ways of legitimizing Conferences Frederik Kaufman puts it, “nothing in anthropocentrism control of “inferior” Summer Reading Suggestions The Lantern by “superior” entities. We must free ourselves from these housing developments, and these future generations will dualistic thought patterns if we are to relate to each other adapt to what we leave them. But what kind of people do and to nature in mutually respectful rather than harmful we create when we do this? Do we owe them better than and controlling ways. this, even if we have reason to think they won’t complain Deep ecology, founded by Arne Naess, seeks to about what we leave them? overturn traditional value systems and replace them with Ecophenomenology is quite a new approach devel- biological, ecological egalitarianism. Naess’s own brand oped initially by Erazim Kohak and Neil Evernden in of deep ecology (Ecosophy T) draws inspiration from the 1980s. These two thinkers believe that a phenom- Buddhism and the ideas of Dutch philosopher Spinoza enological approach has much to offer in countering (1632-1677). Under the banner of “Self-Realization!”. the Western tendency to reduce nature to its use value. Naess urges each of us to expand our personal identities They draw upon Heidegger in suggesting that if we view until they encompass all life, ultimately breaking down nature as simply something there for us to master and the boundary between “me” and “not me.” put towards human aims, we will find ourselves alienated While many trace the roots of our environmental from nature and unable to understand ourselves as well crisis to Judeo-Christian ideals, interest in “green religion” as nature. As one contemporary ecophenomenologist, is on the rise. Figures like Wendell Berry have long ar- Ingrid Stefanovic, suggests, “One of phenomenology’s gued that the fact that God has given the natural world primary tasks is to articulate essential meanings as they to us to use for our own good does not imply that we appear to human understanding , …to discern underlying can do whatever we want with it. In “The Gift of Good patterns of meaning that may not be self-evident but that Land” he argues that it is a mistake for us to model our permeate our efforts to interpret the world in which we relationship to nature on the story of the giving of the find ourselves and to crystallize some essential truths in Garden of Eden, because we are fallen people. A better their historical and cultural rootedness.” Biblical model, he says, is the story of the giving of the Phenomenological insights can help us to make bet- Promised Land to the tribes of Israel. In his words, “such ter decisions on environmental matters. We can use such a gift can be given only as a moral predicament: having insights to improve policies and laws as well as the design failed to deserve it beforehand, they must prove worthy of the environments in which we dwell and work. Again, of it afterwards; they must use it well, or they will not Ingrid Stefanovic, claims that phenomenological perspec- continue long in it.” This kind of criticism has spurred tives may provide a middle way between anthropocentric research into what it means to be a good steward of the and ecocentric viewpoints, in which the world is perceived natural world for God. Bernard Rollin claims it is no ac- as something to be neither controlled nor revered. cident that God’s ideal relationship to us is often captured Next fall UWG will be sponsoring a sustainability in terms of good animal husbandry. We respect God and week hosting an international conference with sustain- what God has given us by responding appropriately to ability and the environment as its theme and promoting natural needs and characteristic activities of other animals activities that draw attention to ways of making our and plants. After all, on this Biblical view, animals and campus and our lives more sustainable. Environmental plants have the natures they do because God made them philosophy will certainly be a part of the discussion. Stay that way. To ignore their natures, or to use them in ways tuned here for information about the activities involved not consistent with their natures, is to ignore God’s will. and let’s get thinking about the environment! Some philosophers are interested in issues in envi- ronmental justice. For instance, the Great Ape Project is an international effort to get the United Nations to endorse a “Declaration on Great Apes.” This declaration PHILOSOPHER’S would extend basic legal rights to gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans. Other philosophers ask whether ISDOM corrective justice requires developed nations to repay the W world community, and especially developing nations, in “The greatest intellectual capacities are compensation for the damage they caused to the natural only found in connection with a vehe- environment while they developed. Still other philoso- phers ask what we owe to future generations. We can ment and passionate will.” leave future generations a planet largely devoid of natural ~Arthur Schopenhauer spaces, one filled with parking lots, shopping malls, and 2 Spring 2014 SUMMER 2014 COURSE DESCRIPTIONS —Session III: June 2-June 24— Phil 2030-01: Introduction to Ethics MTWRF 10:00 a.m.-12:15 p.m. (Pafford 308) Dr. Rosemary Kellison This course serves as an introduction to ethics: philosophical thinking about the question of how humans ought to live. In this course we will engage with ethics on several different levels. We will think about practical moral problems, such as abortion, capital punishment, animal rights, and poverty. To enable critical examination of our own and others’ positions on such moral problems, we will explore various theoretical approaches to ethics, learning the different ways in which individuals and communities justify their moral arguments. Finally, we will consider broader, more theoretical questions regarding the nature and origin of morality itself. Required for philosophy majors. May count for credit in Core