In “All Animals Are Equal,” Australian moral philosopher, Peter Singer, believes the interests of animals should be given equal moral consideration to those of humans. Yet, in modern society the interests of humans are pursued at the expense of animals. Singer says we should think about the treatment of non-human animals in terms of equal consideration of interests, meaning identical interests should be given equal weight regardless of what type of being they occur in. Humans have plenty of interests that animals do not have. Humans and animals however have the shared interest of avoiding suffering. Singer believes we need to equally consider the interest of avoiding suffering. Humans and animals both have the capacity to suffer and the desire to not experience suffering and pain. Singer thus contends that we are not justified in prioritizing human interests over non-human interests. Singer popularized the term “speciesism,” which is a form of discrimination based on species membership. At a point in “All Animals are Equal,” Peter Singer compares humans consuming animals to humans owning other humans as slaves. Peter Singer predicts that there will be a future epoch where our decedents look back at our treatment of animals the same modern culture looks at slavery. Although I agree that future generations may be appalled by how their ancestors treated animals. I think slavery and humans modern relationship with animal are not equivocal, as humans of different races has identical interests, where humans and non-humans animals interests drastically differ. I believe that Signer does not provide a convincing argument for humans to be unjustified in prioritizing their own self-interest, as all other species act and are obliged to act in their own self-interest. The problem of evaluating the interests of non-human animals concerns how humans utilize and treat animals for their own interest. Two areas that are debated are rearing animals for food and animal experimentation for medical research. In terms of rearing animals for food, if the benefits that humans receive from consuming animals for food outweighs or equals the suffering then the practice of rearing animals for food is not inherently objectionable. Additionally, some believe that animals raised for farming may experience better lives than they would if not cared for by humans. Those against the rearing of animals for food do not believe humans interest in eating meat outweigh animals interest in getting killed. However, the point of animals living a better life when reared for food, as aforementioned, is wildly inaccurate in industrial agriculture. Industrial agriculture, or factory farming, has developed over the past century, and it involves the gross mistreatment and suffering of animals. Factory farming exploits animals, cramping them together and abusing them. Animals are mutilated by clipping teeth, docking tails, and trimming beaks. Additionally, animals are genetically modified to grow as fast as possible, so they can be killed and consumed quicker. These genetic mutations cause great harm to the animals and treat them merely as a means to an end. Humans bring animals into the world for them to lead a short life of suffering for the sole purpose of human consumption. Animals experience egregious suffering and mistreatment in industrial agriculture. If animals live a short life of immense pain for the exclusive reason of human consumption, then the benefits humans receive from eating animals do not outweigh the suffering of animals. Industrial agricultural practices treat animals as merely means to an end, devaluing their lives for pure means of human consumption. Egregious and unnecessary animal suffering in modern factory farming. Singer argues that humans ought to not eat animals because they do not need to. Many humans justify their uses of non-human animals with the argument of need. Most humans believe actions that are necessary for survival are therefore justified. For example, the killing of another human being for the purpose of self-defense. This argument is used to defend animal testing and consumption. Singer argues that we ought not to rear animals for food, as he believes the suffering of animals matters no less than the suffering of humans. However in “All Animals are Equal,” Singer simply states that all humans have the option to not eat meat without elaboration. In this claim, Singer fails to consider the systemic concerns that prevent people from being able to go vegetarian or vegan. He ignores huge systemic problems about the price of healthy food and the lack of food accessibility to already precarious communities.Thus a vegetarian and vegan diet is often unaffordable or inaccessible to many communities - also not all humans are able to healthily cut meat out of their diet. If other animals were able to not be carnivores would they then be obliged to be omnivores instead?
From an evolutionary and philosophical standpoint, I argue that humans are just in pursuing their interests over those of non-human animals; however, humans should not treat animals as merely a means to an end and cause unnecessary harm. Therefore, I believe that humans should consider the suffering of animals and end factory farming and unnecessary cosmetic testing. But I do not believe Singer makes a strong enough argument against humans being unjustified in the consumption of animals, as other species prioritize their own species and consume others. How can humans be speciesist if they are likely the only other species that considers the suffering of other animals? Word Count: 880
0 Comments
Arne Naess, the founder of Deep Ecology. Deep Ecology is a holistic and nonanthropocentric environmental ethic. Arne Naess first coined the term deep ecology in 1973. Despite its recent origin in Western environmental ethics, deep ecology also has numerous parallels with Eastern philosophies such as Daoism and Confucianism.
In furthering the concept of deep ecology, Are Naess seeks to expand the notion of the “self.” The predominant notion of self in the West is incomplete and a narrow conception of the ego. Naess argues that an environmental ethic should not require self-sacrifice or altruism. Rather, environmentalism should be in enlightened self-interest. The fundamental principles that ground and facilitate the philosophy of deep ecology are rooted in basic beliefs about the nature of reality. Deep ecology thus seeks to target problematic ontology, grounded in anthropocentrism, that results in ecological destruction. Naess argues that shifting ontology, our underlying perception of the world, will result in a trickling shift of our ethical thinking and moral character as well. This shift of moral character will result in ecological consciousness, cultivating the insight that everything is interconnected. This ecological consciousness and self-realization leads to humans further identifying with nature and moving towards a plural conception of the self as opposed to a narrow conception of one’s selfhood. The key to this shift lies in the ability for humans to identify with other beings in the environment. This identification will translate into further connection with ecosystems. Naess contends that environmental actions will flow naturally from the shift in perception catalyzed by the recognition of true selfhood and its inherent connection with nature. Environmental actions are not performed because of Kantaian duty, but rather caring for the environment will arise naturally as a form of self love. Arne Naess’ deep ecology provides for a convincing case for environmentalism rooted in self-love and not sacrifice: “we need an environmental ethics, but when people feel they unselfishly give up, even sacrifice, their interest in order to show love for Nature, this is probably in the long run a treacherous basis for interest served by conservation, through genuine self-love, love of a widened and deepened self.” (The Deep Ecology Movement, 17). This extension of the self and the view of environmentalism as self-love has similar frameworks and applications to environmental virtue ethics. Both ethical treatises argue that actions that benefit nature and the environment also benefit the self. In environmental virtue ethics, environmental virtues are seen as essential to human flourishing. Both ethical frameworks show that environmental actions arise naturally from self-love and in acting within one’s best interest. Despite the notion that environmentalism is an important part of self-love and human flourishing, most environmentalism is not rooted in moral character, but rather in selfishness and human’s superiority complex. Because deep ecology is nonanthropocentric, we often see the opposite from of deep ecology, shallow ecology. Environmentalism focused on human preservation is shallow ecology. Environmentalists operate under maximum sustainable yield, how much you can deplete an ecosystem without collapsing it, while not accounting for ecological consumption. Examples of shallow ecology include increasing technology to solve environmental problems, resource management, and valuing nature in terms of ecosystem services. In Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist, Paul Kingsnorth describes the superficial and descriptive nature of shallow environmentalism. Modern environmentalists advocate for colossal solar farms in the desserts, clearing forests for biofuel plantations and placing offshore turbines in the ocean: “this is business as usual: the expansive, colonizing, progressive human narrative, shorn only of the carbon. It is the latest phase of our careless, self-absorbed, ambition-addled destruction of the wild, the unpolluted and the non-human. It is the mass destruction of the world’s remaining wild places in order to feed the human economy. And without any sense of irony, people are calling this ‘environmentalism.’” (Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist, 71). Anthropocentric, shallow environmentalism is self-absorption not self-love. Shallow ecology prioritizes the interests of humans over the interests of the environment. It views human of superior and outside nature, and only ascribes value to nature base on its practicality to human consumption or instrumental use. However, deep ecology does not separate humans, or anything else for the matter, from the environment. Deep ecology sees the natural environment as an extension of human’s own selfhood and essential to humans flouring and self-love, much like environmental virtue ethics. Deep ecology does not see the natural environment as a collection of resources for human consumption but rather a fundamentally interconnected and interdependent network and extension of the self. Are Naess’ philosophy recognizes the intrinsic value of all human beings and nature and their interconnected self-love. How might we condemn shallow ecology when modern environmentalism is human-centered, and shift the movement towards one that prioritizes nature’s own interest as interconnected with our own? Word Count: 819 In the Land Ethic, Aldo Leopold argues that an action is right, or ethical, when it works to preserve and strengthen the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. The Land Ethic is popular among professional conservationists, and thus understanding the full implications of the Land Ethic are important to environmental ethics. However, the Land Ethic is unpopular among philosophers for the potential consequences of its holistic approach, particularly its potential for ecofascism. In Beyond the Land Ethic, J. Baird Callicott explores and dejects the claim that Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic insinuates and justifies ecofascism in his chapter “Holistic Environmental Ethics and the Problem of Ecofascism.” Ecofascism places the blame of ecological destruction and climate change on overpopulation and immigration. Ecofascism is a theoretical political model in which an authoritarian government would require individuals to sacrifice their own interests to the whole of nature. Contemporarily, ecofascism is an ideology which blames the demise of the environment on overpopulation, immigration, and over-industrialization, problems that followers think could be partly remedied through the exclusion or extermination of refugees in Western countries. Additionally, modern ecofascism in the developed world (e.g., US, Europe, and Australia) has taken on overtly racist tones, blaming ecological destruction on immigrants, the overpopulation in less developed countries, and the over- industrialization needed to handle such large populations. Proponents of ecofascism thus believe that ecological degradation and overpopulation could be remedied ing immigrants from entering their space and more drastically, through mass murder. Given that the land ethic justifies any action as morally right if it strengthens the stability, integrity, and beauty of the biotic community, the eradication of species that threaten the biotic community are justified. For example, the killing of goats on the Galapagos Island to preserve the ecosystem as well as the threatened tortoises is justified under the land ethic. The issue that arises is how the land ethic could extend to humanity. The concern of this ethical justification is presented in Callicott’s piece as a potential justification for eradicating large swaths of human beings. The potential for exterminating or dehumanizing large groups of people on the basis of strengthening the holistic biotic community. Callicott most effectively rejects this claim of ecofascism by explaining the land ethic as an accretion to environmental ethics rather than a reigning moral compass that supersedes previous ethical treatises. Callicott revises the utilization of the land ethic. Obligations generated by membership in more vulnerable and intimate communities take precedence over those generated in more recently emerged and impersonal communities. However, stronger interests generate duties and take over duties generated by weaker interests within ones on community. Thus membership to a certain community does not outweigh other concerns. Under the framework that Callicott describes a family, for example, does not prioritzie feeding all children before caring for their own. However if membership of one group conflicted with another group, the strength of interests must be evaluated. Callicott provides the examples of loggers and an old growth forest. The loggers have an obligation to support their immediate community, their family, but they also have an obligation towards the strength and integrity of the biotic community. The loggers would like to clear the old growth forest in the interest of their livelihood. However, the old growth forest has a stronger interest in preserving its own life. If the need is stronger than the one inside your own community than you support the stronger need outside your community. Life takes precedence over livelihood reversing that previous precedence. Leopold’s land ethic is therefore an accretion and does not replace other ethical frameworks. Naomi Klein’s discusses the weaponization of ecofascism in her book, On Fire - The Burning Case for a Green New Deal. In relating the Land Ethic to modern moral concerns, I believe Callicott provides a convincing argument that the Land Ethic does not justify ecofascism. Callicott shows that the Land Ethic does not motivate or justify ecofascism. The origins and weaponization can instead be found in Naomi Klein’s book, On Fire - The Burning Case for a Green New Deal.
Naomi Klein eloquently problematizes ecofascism and illustrates how ideas of ecofascism can be justified and weaponized. Klein describes ecofascism as climate barbarism where ecofascism encourages countries and institutions to fortress their borders, creating a war on those competing with resources, and othering those outside of their immediate community. Countries and individuals with ecofascist ideas here do not act in the interest of the entire biotic community but rather in the economic interest of their own community. Ethno-nationalists and eco-fascists operate under their own economic interest of white supremacy, resource allocation, and immigration. The land ethic does not justify the contemporary weaponization of ecofascism. Klein better captures the nature of ecofascism, where we can see that it's not a kind of environmental thinking at all, and therefore could not arise from the Land Ethic. Under Callicott’s accretion framework of the land ethic, the groups that eco fascists have “othered” interest of life and the preservation of the holistic wellbeing of the Earth and future generation certainly do not justify the actions or ideologies of modern eco fascists. Does it not seem that modern philosophers should be more concerned with dismantling origins of racism, white supremacy, and xenophobia as opposed to the origins of the land ethic? Word Count: 850 In Emplotting Virtue - A Narrative Approach to Environmental Virtue Ethics, Brian Treanor expands upon Aristotle’s treatise of virtue ethics presented in the Nicomachean Ethics to include environmental virtues. His contention is that the way virtue ethics has traditionally been conceived is much too narrow. Treanor revises traditional virtue ethics to include environmental virtues.In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle claims the key to eudaimonia, human happiness and welfare, is living a virtuous life. Here virtues are deeply ingrained moral dispositions, such as honesty and temperance, that must be practiced and enjoyed. Ultimately living a virtuous life leads to human flourishing. While Treanor agrees with Aristotle that virtues are necessary to live the good life, he believes this view is incomplete, with no account of environmental concerns. Treanor presents virtue ethics as three interconnected parts: individual, social, and environmental. The third term, environmental virtues, can now be used when discussing issues regarding the environment. The term environmental virtues is rhetorical as they have always existed and been interconnected to individual and social virtues. In Treanor’s extension of virtue ethics, he thus holds that environmental virtue ethics is essential to the good life. Treanor argues that virtues rely on both nature and culture and relying on only one component will give an incomplete account of virtue and flourishing. The environment cannot be separated from human flourishing. For example, humans could not flourish without clean air and water. Many virtues such as simplicity, foresight, and temperance are virtues that contribute to the human flourishing in each of the three realms of virtue ethics. Although these virtues are interconnected and collectively contribute to human flourishing, Treanor acknowledges that there are times when these three realms of virtue ethics can come in conflict with one another. For example, driving a car is not environmentally virtuous when there are more sustainable forms of transportation, but if an individual needs to get to work or another important matter and public transportation is not an option, then it would be the individuals best interest to drive. However, it is more likely that all three virtues will intersect. A logger may want to engage in deforestation, but ultimately abstaining or restraining will be individually virtuous for him and his community as he will extend his livelihood. Virtue ethicists believe that focusing on character is a better approach to ethics, and Treanor provides a convincing case for why environmental virtue ethics better addresses humans obligations to the environment. Traditional environmental ethics focuses on duty-based appels for sacrifice in the preservation of the environment. Treanor also extends the concept of human flourishing to just survival and continuance of the human species. Treanor argues that living virtuously in the interest of the environment directly contributes to human happiness, providing a more convincing case to live sustainability than buty-based appeals. Humans are more likely to do something because it benefits them rather than what they “ought to do.” An article from the Sierra Club conveying the necessity and importance of individual environmental action: https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/yes-actually-individual-responsibility-essential-solving-climate-crisis A potential concern with virtue ethics, is the emphasis on the individual. Focusing on individual actions can minimize and detract away from the environmental harm committed by corporations and institutions. However, I believe that Treanor’s argument does not contribute to an egregious emphasis on the individual, but rather points to how these environmental virtues are present and necessary within the individual, society, and the environment. The practice of environmental virtue ethics in all three of these realms results in human flourishing. If all humans sought to live an environmentally virtuous life then these effects would thus extend from the individual level to the societal and environmental sphere. Treanor points to the fact that what actions are necessary to combat climate change and protect the environment are often the same actions that will benefit our own communities and individual lives. I believe, as do many others, that living sustainably is a form of self-care. Minimalism, conscious consumerism, and waste reduction can help individuals engage in meaningful daily activities and feel good about it. Individual environmental action also adds up. Although it is important to recognize that the majority of GHG emissions and ecological degradation is from large corporations and governments, individual actions still result in collective change. Individual actions are necessary in the fight to combat climate change. Treanor’s case is convincing to encourage humans to shift their mindset and lifestyle to be more sustainable for the benefit of themselves, their communities, and the greater good of the plant and their future. An article from Bustle advocating for individual actions in the fight against climate change: https://www.bustle.com/p/can-one-person-make-a-difference-with-climate-change-experts-insist-your-voice-matters-18687241 Thus, Emplotting Virtue - A Narrative Approach to Environmental Virtue Ethics presents a powerful ethical treatise of how humans can strengthen their own characters to live a happier, more sustainable and virtuous life. Given the collective power of environmental virtue ethics, how can we advocate for virtue ethics in large corporations and governments that would ultimately flourish when operating environmentally virtuously?
Word Count: 801 Karen Warren discusses ecofeminism in her chapter, the Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism. In her chapter, the Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism, Karen Warren discusses the origins, importance, and applications of ecological feminism. Feminism is a move to end sexist oppression. Feminists seek to eliminate sources of systematic subordination and domination of women. Ecological feminism, also known as ecofeminism, is the position that there are important historical, experiential, symbolical, and theoretical connections between the domination of women and the domination of nature. Often the same worldview and frameworks that are used to justify the domination and exploration of nature are also used to justify the domination of women. Additionally, the interconnection of feminism and environmentalism can also be seen in how ecological destruction disproportionately affects women. A feminist issue is any issue that contributes to the understanding of the oppression of women. Warren thus contends that ecological destruction and exploitation is a feminist issue. The domination of women and nature are justified by the same patriarchal conceptual frameworks. Warren defines an oppressive conceptual framework as one that explains and justifies relationships of domination and subordination. Oppressive conceptual frameworks value hierarchical thinking, dualisms, and the logic of domination. Warren points out that the first two features of these frameworks are not necessarily harmful, but the logic of domination, a structure of argumentation which leads to a justification of subordination. Often this logic plays out as one group justifying domination of another group in terms of differences of characteristics between the two groups. In Western Societies, the oppressive conceptual framework that dominates nature and women is patriarchal and follows all the aforementioned features of an oppressive conceptual framework. Men justify the domination of women by characterizing them as closely tied with nature and the realm of the physical. While men saw themselves as the human in the mental realm. This physical and mental separation contributed to the logic of domination, as whatever is identified with nature and the realm of the physical is inferior to the human and the mental. Men identifying themselves as the mental and casting women to the physical led to their perceived superiority. The logic of domination follows that men are thus just is subordinating women. Consequently, Warren concludes that women and nature are exploited under the same oppressive, patriarchal conceptual framework, where men value the dualism of the physical versus the mental and assume a hierarchical superiority to the physical and through the logic of domination are justified to subordinate women and nature. Feminism opposes patriarchy, and thus opposes the patriarchal oppressive structures that subordinate women and nature. Ecofeminism objects to the oppression of both women and nature, but also inherently opposes patriarchy. Because patriarchy has also led to ecological destruction, ecofeminism belongs within feminism proper. Ecofeminism holds that rejection of naturism, the unjust domination of nonhuman nature, is necessary to the feminist vision. Warren contends that because the feminist vision seeks to create notions of difference that do not breed domination, it then follows that ecofeminism also calls for the eradication of all systems of oppression. Warren believes that all of these systems are embedded in the same oppressive framework. She believes that the same logic of domination that oppresses women also oppresses other marginalized groups, and that there is a conceptual interconnection between all forms of oppression. But what does it do for us to think of all oppressions as connected? Warren argues that the association of women with nature and the physical led to their oppression. Men felt justified in dominating women because they associated them with the physical and nature. Other marginalized groups, such as BIPOC, oppression cannot be boiled down to a greater association with nature and the physical. Warren’s notion that all marginalized groups oppression is rooted in the same conceptual frameworks is invalidating and erases the experience of these groups. Because of this I believe extending the scope of ecofeminism to be a tool too eradicate all systems of oppression is too broad. Advocating for the interconnection of feminism and environmentalism at the 2019 Women's March in NYC. Warren tries to extend the application of feminism too broadly. Moving outside a reasonable scope, discredits the idea of ecofeminism. I do not believe that ecofeminism has applications for eradicating all systems of oppression. Ecofeminism is also not for ecologists. Ecological destruction does disproportionately affect women, but it more significantly oppresses other marginalized groups than women. I believe the most effective application of ecofeminism is within feminism. The ideas of ecofeminism can be best applied to feminists to aid in their understanding that climate change, naturism, and ecological destruction are feminists issues. The primary goal of ecofeminism should be to make all feminists environmentalists. Because ecological destruction and climate change disproportionately affect women, feminists should engage in climate and environmental activism to protect and advocate for women. How else might we mobilize other groups to recognize the interconnection of climate justice within justice for their own identity?
Word Count: 812 |
AuthorI am a senior at Fordham University, studying Economics, Environmental Studies, and Sustainable Business. My research interests include dune and plant ecology, coastal management, conservation, and climate change. CategoriesArchives |