sustainability Article Structuring Ethical Interpretations of the Sustainable Development Goals—Concepts, Implications and Progress Martina Keitsch Faculty of Architecture and Design, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway; [email protected] Received: 31 December 2017; Accepted: 10 March 2018; Published: 15 March 2018 Abstract: The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), like the sustainable development (SD) concept itself, are open to multifaceted interpretations, and the same is true for their ethical implications. While SDG values are widely accepted as universal, the ethical structure of the SDGs is complex, with differing interpretations and ideas, e.g., on how to regard and value nature. This article is a conceptual attempt to clarify and structure ethical interpretations based on an environmental ethics framework consisting of two branches: anthropocentrism and biocentrism. The aim is to provide an overview of SDG positions and locate them in the wider field of environmental ethics, addressing the human–nature relationship as a recurring topic in the SDGs. Section 1 of this article presents environmental ethics and briefly discusses anthropocentrism and biocentrism. Section 2 outlines ethical similarities of SD and the SDGs and locates representative SDG interpretations within the environmental ethics framework. Section 3 summarizes findings and suggests a possibility of integrating biocentrism and anthropocentrism with regard to the further interpretation and discussion of SDG ethics. Insights from this article will aid researchers in adopting a better overview on ethical positions in the SDG debate. Keywords: environmental ethics; SDG interpretations; nature experience 1. Introduction to Environmental Ethics The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) define a future development agenda for 2015–2030 meant to encourage the international community to move toward a global sustainable future in the next few decades. Against this backdrop, SDG interpretations raise ethical issues in the human–nature relationship directly, in terms of sustainable resource use and/or within the limits of ecosystems [1], or indirectly, in terms of just distribution or equal opportunities [2]. The human–nature relationship is also the focus of interest for environmental ethics. The following article aims to shed light on some ethical SDG interpretations by analyzing and locating them within an environmental ethics framework. Most of the ethical SDG interpretations refer to anthropocentric positions, but some comprise biocentric or eco-centric aspects. However, the latter often remain implicit. Following the introduction, Section2 of this article discusses the ethical foundations of anthropocentrism and biocentrism, with a focus on teleological, eudemonistic and virtue ethics. Further, ethical interpretations of SDGs are analyzed with regard to both branches and their subordinated ethical approaches. Section3 attempts to revisit the biocentric intrinsic value of nature from an anthropocentric perspective and describe it as a social and cultural value. The aim of this attempt is to exemplify and include non-instrumental values of nature in the debate of the SDGs. The following section briefly introduces ethics, environmental ethics, and the two branches of biocentrism and anthropocentrism. In ethics, one can roughly distinguish between teleological and deontological approaches. The fundamental difference between these elementary moral philosophical Sustainability 2018, 10, 829; doi:10.3390/su10030829 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2018, 10, 829 2 of 9 positions arises among others from their interpretations of morally correct action. Teleological ethics are utilitarianism, eudaemonistic ethics, ethics of responsibility and virtue ethics. They see the “good” as the ultimate goal. Morally correct actions have the maxim: “Act in such a way that the stated (moral) goal is achieved.” Deontological ethics such as ethics of duty refer to moral motivation and specific rules, which are independent of the consequences of action, and have the maxim: “Do the good for its own sake” [3]. Historically, questions concerning appropriate behavior toward the environment permeate European culture from Antiquity to Modernity. Noteworthy is Plato’s critique of deforestation [4], and Aristotle’s classification of animals and humans in the Nicomachean Ethics: “Life is defined in the case of animals by the power of perception in that of man by the power of perception or thought; and a power is defined by reference to the corresponding activity, which is the essential thing; therefore life seems to be essentially the act of perceiving or thinking [5].” Later, e.g., Seneca [6], Agricola [7], and Malthus [8] criticized the human exploitation of nature. Referring to the Greek words “oikos” (house) and “logos” (teaching), Ernst Haeckel introduced the concept of “ecology” as a “science of the natural balance” in 1866 [9]. Even if past centuries are not necessarily depicting a harmonious human–nature relationship, environmental problems had limited geographical impact. This changed with the growing awareness in the 1960s that, besides depleting local ecosystems, accumulated effects of human activities can cause global catastrophes. Carson’s “Silent Spring” [10], Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” [11], and, in particular, the Club of Rome’s report “Limits of Growth” [12] are often referred to as being the trigger for contemporary environmental philosophy and ethics. Some authors also claim that the environmental discourse had been fueled by the fact that the exhaustion of natural ecosystems had shown severe consequences not only for nature but also for humans and society itself. Changes in the natural environment placed the social environment under pressure to change [13]. Replying to the increased awareness of a connection between environmental problems and human society, environmental ethics emerged as new and more radical concept of ethics in the early 1970s [14]. Ecological or environmental ethics is a part of bioethics, which also includes medical ethics, animal ethics, gene ethics, and population ethics. It can be understood as a systematic attempt to examine human interventions in ecosystems and nature with regard to ethical justifications and to evaluations of whether prerequisites and consequences of actions are appropriate or not. Systematically, one can roughly differentiate between two environmental ethics branches, biocentrism (including eco-centrism), and anthropocentrism. These two branches diverge fundamentally. Biocentrism grounds maxims on the intrinsic value of all living beings, while anthropocentrism grounds maxims on human values. The epistemic background for biocentrism is the perception of a biotic community as an interdependent, functioning system. The evolution of life in this system is represented through various forms of living beings, while the simplest forms of beings are still parts of the most complex ones. Even the most complex beings, i.e., humans, cannot exist outside of this system. In this respect, humans are a part of nature; they have not created it but have developed in the same way as all other natural beings in the system. Ethical core values of the biocentric position are the “auto-telos” (self-purpose) and the intrinsic value of living beings. The auto-telos as aim of all living beings to grow and realize their natural purpose is the main argument to constitute their value as moral objects. As moral objects, they have rights, and moral maxims are directed toward them. The main maxim of biocentrism, dependent on which being or system has rights, is that humans have to preserve and protect other living beings, ecosystems, or nature as a whole. Within the overarching ethical framework, one can also distinguish between deontological and teleological positions in biocentrism. Deontic positions justify rights from the pure existence of living beings, ecosystems, or the whole of nature as a reason to prescribe maxims to humans. Teleological positions derive moral obligations from the purposiveness or the interests of living beings, ecosystems, or nature as a whole. The epistemic background for anthropocentrism is the perception of nature as the human habitat, shaped and maintained according to humans’ needs and desires. Nature has to be protected as part of Sustainability 2018, 10, 829 3 of 9 the human environment, both for present and future generations. This position implies a hetero-telos (other-purpose, as opposed to self-purpose) of nature and living beings as a basis for teleological or deontological arguments. The maxim to preserve nature and its beings exists only insofar that they have an instrumental value as a resource, or non-instrumental value as objects of contemplative, theoretical, religious, or aesthetic activities. Teleological anthropocentricism establishes moral action by referring to human interests, while non-rational living beings are assumed to have no interests, desires, and hopes. Their value is assigned to them by humans if they become an object of interest, i.e., are regarded as valuable or as leading to something that is considered valuable. Because of this interest, humans have rights e.g. to use nature resources as effectively and sparingly as possible because resource depletion affects human life quality. Yet, teleological anthropocentricism is different from a pure management strategy, e.g., in its claims for economic viability and social inclusion. Environmental