Book Reviews

Book Reviews Robin ATTFIELD. Environmental Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. 137 pp. Robin Attfield’s Environmental Ethics: A Very Short Introduction is urgently needed at a time of climate change, the sixth mass extinction, destruction of the last remaining natural environments and the emergence of the Anthropocene. Attfield is a prominent scholar in environmental ethics and has contributed extensively to the field since the early 1980s, providing him with a long-term view of its development. His work ranges from biocen- trism to Christian attitudes, from global warming to loss of biodiversity. He is professor emeritus at Cardiff University and very qualified to write such an introduction. Attfield is successful in providing a comprehensive introduction to the key areas of environmental ethics. Instead of summarising all these themes and arguments here, I wish instead to explore the contents by raising two important themes that are prominent in the book. Firstly, raising and clarifying conceptual complexities is one of the key tasks of environmental ethics. Attfield recognises this and introduces the reader to important concepts such as ‘nature’, ‘the environment’, ‘moral standing’, and ‘value’, which are not as axiomatic as they might first seem and are open to different interpretations. Thus, environmental ethics provides a more nuanced and careful analysis of environmental issues. Secondly, Attfield shows that the themes of environmental ethics are not only important philosophically, but also have significant real-world implications. Indeed, as Attfield puts it “[…] recognizing the moral standing of living creatures does not make moral decisions impossible, or morality impractical. Instead, it enriches our understanding of the context of action and of moral decision-making” (22). Attfield analyses the ability of main ethical theories (contract models, virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism) to recognise and respond to environmental problems. Unlike the style of introductory literature in general, Attfield takes a clear stance on the type of environmental ethics approach he endorses, promoting biocentric consequentialism (according to which it is the state of affairs (e.g. flourishing) of all living organisms that matters) over the other ethical theories. However, he goes on to emphasise that “[e] nvironmental ethics is rather a dialogue between many stances and voices, and certainly not a single stance” (59). In addition, he emphasises that environmental ethics is not simply focused on non-humans, but is also concerned with the intersection between the environment and humans. One of the prominent issues is the moral standing of future ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES 26, no. 3 (2019): 535-552. © 2019 by Centre for Ethics, KU Leuven. All rights reserved. doi: 10.2143/EP.26.3.3287344 ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES – SEPTEMBER 2019 human generations and the many ways the environment contributes to human wellbeing. The key underlying message is that the broadening of our ethical realm is not only pos- sible but also necessary. The latter half of the book demonstrates this wide reach of environmental ethics and goes beyond intramural discussions to cover environmental policy and practice, social and political movements, and how religions across the world have affected environmental ethics. Among other things, Attfield provides an interesting analysis of the content of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, discusses the practice and limits of ecological preservation, evaluates ecofeminist theories (which explore the intersection of feminism and environmental thought), environmental justice movements (which rep- resent the battle of disadvantaged social groups against their disproportionate position in suffering from environmental burdens) and how theistic religions have promoted the idea of environmental stewardship. Finally, Attfield explores one of the defining problems of humanity: climate change. As scientific consensus on climate change and its effects is intensifying, so too are the ethical theories provided by environmental ethics. Adaptation, mitigation and compensation strategies are explored and different tools for making sense of moral responsibility over climate change offered by philosophers are introduced. Importantly, Attfield not only looks at the responsibilities of humans (col- lective and individual), but also how the inclusion of non-human beings would fit and effect climate ethics. For Attfield, climate change is truly a test-case for environmental ethics displaying its practical relevance and importance. Despite the book being short, Attfield is successful in representing the great depth and volume of environmental ethics in a very concise space and in a balanced manner. Not only does the reader gain a good basic understanding of environmental ethics, but Attfield also manages to explain complex phenomena and theories with comprehensible ease. I do have a few minor critical remarks to make. Throughout the book, Attfield makes clear to the reader his position in environmental ethics, which is biocentric consequentialism. This approach can have both positive and negative aspects. On the positive side, it provides the book with a clearer narrative as many of the ethical problems and dilemmas are not left out in the open without a clear ethical solution. This can be particularly helpful for those readers who are new to philosophy. At the same time, however, promoting one ethical standpoint or theory over another too overtly in an introductory work can leave little space for the reader to decide which arguments are most convincing to them. Of course, deontologists, virtue ethicists and ecocentrists disagree with Attfield’s position that biocentric consequentialism offers the best solu- tions for environmental problems. My critical remark is not directed towards the fact that Attfield clearly displays his environmental ethical position. On the contrary, I find that this works very well (and this is how environmental ethics works). I am simply pointing out that greater emphasis could have been placed on the fact that this is the writer’s position, that others (including the reader) might not agree, and that many of the competing theories have convincing (if not equally convincing) arguments, their point of focus often simply being different. In addition, I felt that the chapter on — 536 — Ethical Perspectives 26 (2019) 3 BOOK REVIEWS deontology in particular was slightly rushed compared to the other theories covered, which meant that environmental interpretations of deontology were not really discussed. Furthermore, I would have included the term ‘environmental ethics’ in the ‘some key concepts’ chapter. Defining ‘environmental ethics’ would have been useful, as another very similar term, ‘environmental philosophy’, is also being used by the philo- sophical community. Environmental philosophy is a broader field within philosophy under which environmental ethics belongs as a subfield. This categorisation is important because environmental ethics leaves other important evironmental topics such as philosophy of science, philosophy of technology, aesthetic and ontological evaluation of the environment outside its scope. Or has the field been misnamed altogether after the influential journal in the field called Environmental Ethics, as suggested by Eugene Har- grove in Foundations of Environmental Ethics (New Jersey: Prentice Hall,1989, 3)? Having some background information about the term ‘environmental ethics’ and its evolution would help any newcomers to better navigate the field. This short introduction is particularly timely and I would recommend it to anyone not yet familiar with environmental ethics and even to those more knowledgeable of the field, who simply wish to have a recap of the main issues. Books like these are particularly useful for such a purpose, as the subject area of environmental ethics is particularly broad. It is truly impressive how Attfield manages to condense such large issues so succinctly into such a short book. Linnea Luuppala University of Helsinki Russell BLACKFORD. The Tyranny of Opinion: Conformity and the Future of Liberalism. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019. 244 pp. Freedom of thought and freedom of expression are two of the oldest freedoms liberalism has fought for. It all began with the demand for freedom of religious beliefs and their expression, as far back as the 16th and 17th centuries. Politics, art and many other domains followed. Reasons for demanding respect for these basic freedoms are varied, and many philosophers have theorized them in influential books. One of these philosophers was John Stuart Mill, whose On Liberty was one of the most influential defences of the freedom of expression. Thus, it is not a surprise that Russell Blackford’s recently published book draws heavily on Mill, the less so as Blackford presents himself as an Enlightenment Liberal, a term which also fits Mill. Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of his book provide a good discussion of some of Mill’s main points and the problems they might pose, especially with regard to the correct interpretation of the famous ‘harm principle’. Blackford notices two blind spots in Mill’s analysis. On the one hand, Mill mainly, if not exclusively, insists on the expression of opinions, thus neglecting a great part of, for example, artistic expression. On the other hand, and this is more important for Blackford, Mill does not account sufficiently for informal and private

Load more