Downloaded from Brill.Com10/01/2021 06:42:26AM Via Free Access L
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PART ONE SETTING THE SCENE L. Hajjar Leib - 9789004189935 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:42:26AM via free access L. Hajjar Leib - 9789004189935 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:42:26AM via free access CHAPTER ONE HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT Introduction In order to examine the subject of environmental human rights, it is necessary to locate it in its historical and philosophical contexts. A relevant environmen- tal philosophy is a prerequisite for understanding our ecological problems and their potential solutions. Environmental philosophy was brought to promi- nence with the debate about the relationship between humans and nature and the possibility of extending the domain of ethics and rights to non-human beings or to nature as a whole.1 As Lynn White Jr., an American historian, said, “what people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them.”2 Th is chapter consists of three sections. Section A explores the roots of our ecological crisis as depicted by philosophers and environmental writers. Section B sheds light on the emergence and development of environmental- ism. By drawing upon the history of environmentalism and the development in environmental philosophy, Section C provides an overview of the ethical facets and philosophical trends of environmentalism. A. Roots of the Environmental Crisis Th e term ‘environment’ is derived from the French verb environner, meaning to surround or encircle. Th us, in an ecological and biological context, the envi- ronment can be defi ned as ‘the complex of physical, chemical and biotic fac- tors that surround and act upon an organism or ecosystem.’3 Th is meaning implies that the environment is peripheral to the organisms or people that live within it.4 Th e term ‘ecosphere’ provides a more precise and substantial substi- tute for the term ‘environment’. Th e ecosphere is composed of four equally important constituents: atmosphere (air), hydrosphere (water), lithosphere 1 Roderick Frazier Nash, Th e Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics (Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 4. 2 Lynn White, Jr., “Th e Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” in An Environmental Law Anthology, ed. Robert L. Fishman, Maxine I. Lipeles, and Mark S. Squillace (Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co., 1996), 5. 3 Sirchin-Th e Free Encyclopaedia, “Environment: Defi nition,” http://www.science.sirchin .com/?topic:environment. 4 J. Stan Rowe, “What on Earth Is Environment?” Th e Trumpeter 6, no. 4 (1989). Available at http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/RoWhatEarth.html. L. Hajjar Leib - 9789004189935 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc-by-ncDownloaded License. from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:42:26AM via free access 12 chapter one (soil) and biosphere (organisms).5 Rowe concluded that ‘ecosphere’ is more meaningful to environmental protection because it gives intrinsic values equally to organic and non-organic parts of the environment and that, conse- quently, “the concept of Ecosphere as the prime reality can begin the cure of the disease of homocentrism by turning attention outward, ecocentrically” permitting the move from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism.6 If anthropocen- trism means that the whole universe revolves around the interests of human- kind and that all human activities are human-centred, ecocentrism is a collection of views that is theoretically in contrast with anthropocentrism. Th is philosophical debate refl ects the values and concepts that are at the heart of modern environmental ethics and politics. 1. Religious Roots of the Ecocrisis Some ecological thinkers have accused the Judeo-Christian doctrine of Creation of engendering the roots of the ecocrisis by encouraging a domineer- ing and arrogant human behaviour towards nature. Western Christianity rep- resented by both Catholicism and Protestantism, has been labelled as ‘the most anthropocentric religion’, compared to other religions.7 Anthropo- centrism is a term used extensively in environmental ethics to indicate a human- centred attitude towards nature. Th e American scholar Edward Payson Evans (1831–1971), the fi rst to high- light the connection between anthropocentrism and Christianity, sharply crit- icised ‘the anthropocentric character of Christianity’, compared to holistic religions such as Buddhism and Brahmanism.8 Seventy years later, in 1967, Lynn White reiterated the same criticism in an infl uential article, “Th e Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis”.9 According to White, the roots of our modern ecological crisis can be at least partially traced to the teachings of Judaism and Christianity, which tend to perceive human beings as masters, rather than a part of nature. White predicated his argument on Genesis 1:26, a controversial verse from the Old Testament that is oft en interpreted as per- mission for humankind to rule over nature: “And God said; Let us make man in our image, aft er our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fi sh of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”10 In White’s opin- ion, this ingrained attitude of mastery and superiority over other creatures stems from the biblical statement that human beings are created in the likeness 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 White, “Historical Roots,” 5–6. White diff erentiated between Western Christianity and the orthodox traditions of Eastern Christianity, which were in greater harmony with nature. 8 Nash, Roderick, Rights of Nature, 51. 9 White, “Historical Roots.” 10 Gen. 1: 26 (King James Version). L. Hajjar Leib - 9789004189935 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:42:26AM via free access historical and philosophical underpinnings 13 of God. Th us, he concluded that this scriptural statement is at the root of the Judeo-Christian belief that God created the Earth and its bounties for human satisfaction and that nature is there to be exploited.11 However, White singled out the doctrine of Saint Francis of Assisi, a highly critical view of the limitless power of humans over creation, as a revolutionary approach to nature in the Christian theology. He considered Assisi the ‘patron saint for ecologists’ because Assisi revered non-human living creatures and placed them on equal footing with humankind. With God as the mutual creator, Assisi refers to all living creatures as brothers and sisters.12 White argued that Christian theology, unlike paganism, removed the sanc- tity and spirituality of nature’s components and phenomena. By freeing people from animism—the belief that elements of nature are inhabited by spirits— Christianity paved the way for science and technology to use nature without the moral restraints of older religions.13 In this regard, the legitimate claims raised by Indigenous peoples concerning their cultural heritage provide a striking illustration of the spiritual aspect of humans’ connection with nature.14 Some writers have gone even further in their criticism of Christianity by depicting the ‘Church’ as an institution that annihilates the holiness of nature through the acquisition of lands and thereby transforms nature into commodities.15 However, Christian theology is diverse and complex and able to embrace both extremes.16 Advocates of the concept of stewardship view it as a better interpretation of the Book of Genesis than White’s thesis and a step forward in the reconciliation between human beings and nature. Schaeff er, an evangelical theologian, denied White’s characterisation of Christianity as anti- environmental, arguing that human dominion over nature was meant to be positive, not destructive, and that it was original sin, which entered the world with the ‘Fall’, that alienated the human-nature relationship.17 Th erefore, human beings have moral obligations towards nature because nature is God’s gift to humankind. Th is guardianship vision implies that God nominated humans to take care of the non-human world.18 Similarly, Dewitt maintained 11 In contrast to this belief, John Passmore found that Stoicism, not passages from the Old Testament, is at the root of human despotism towards nature. See Robert Attfi eld, Environmental Philosophy: Principles and Prospects (Aldershot: Ashgate 1994), 16. 12 White, “Historical Roots,” 7–8. 13 Ibid. 14 See generally, Final Working Paper Prepared by the Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples and Th eir Relationship to Land, Erica-Irene A. Daes, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/21 (2001). 15 David Pepper, Modern Environmentalism (New York: Routledge, 1996), 151. 16 Broadly speaking, Protestantism was more straightforward than Catholicism in diff erenti- ating between creator and creation and in establishing that only God should be worshipped and there should be no guilt in using nature for human needs. See especially Peter Hay, Main Currents in Western Environmental Th ought (Sydney: UNSW Press, 2002), 104. 17 Michael S. Northcott, Th e Environment and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 126–27. 18 It has been argued that the metaphor of stewardship is problematic because human beings do not have full control over natural forces. Other eco-theological alternatives have been L. Hajjar Leib - 9789004189935 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:42:26AM via free access 14 chapter one that the Bible is rich in ecologically friendly teachings and that the real prob- lem lies in implementation of the doctrine, rather