The majestic beauty of our national parks beckons, offering solace and wonder. Yet, a nagging question arises: is traveling to these natural sanctuaries an ethical act when the journey itself often fuels the climate crisis?
The Argument for Experiencing National Parks: Intrinsic and Instrumental Value
At its core, the preservation of national parks stems from a recognition of their intrinsic value. These are not merely patches of land; they are vibrant ecosystems, teeming with biodiversity and governed by intricate natural processes. They offer a glimpse into a world untamed, a testament to the raw power and delicate balance of nature. Beyond their ecological significance, parks hold profound aesthetic and spiritual value. Who hasn’t felt a sense of awe gazing upon a towering peak, or found tranquility beside a cascading waterfall? These experiences foster a deep connection to something larger than ourselves, enriching the human spirit in ways that are difficult to quantify. Some even argue that access to such wild spaces is a fundamental human good, essential for our well-being.
Furthermore, direct experience with nature serves as a powerful motivator for environmental stewardship. It’s challenging to truly care for something abstract. When we walk among ancient trees, observe wildlife in their natural habitat, or breathe the crisp air of an untouched wilderness, that abstract concept of “nature” becomes tangible and personal. This experiential learning fosters appreciation and understanding, transforming passive concern into active advocacy. Visitors to national parks often become their most ardent supporters, fueling political will and financial contributions for conservation efforts. In a world increasingly disconnected from the natural world—a phenomenon sometimes termed “nature deficit disorder”—these immersive experiences are crucial for cultivating a generation that understands and values the environment.
The Ethical Counter-Argument: The Carbon Footprint of Our Wanderlust
However, the very act of reaching these pristine environments often presents a stark ethical dilemma. The vast majority of travel to national parks relies heavily on fossil fuels – cars, planes, and RVs burning gasoline and jet fuel. These emissions contribute directly to climate change, a global phenomenon that threatens the very ecosystems we seek to admire. Increased temperatures lead to more frequent and intense wildfires, accelerate glacier melt, and force species to migrate or face extinction. The irony is poignant: we damage the planet to experience its beauty.
This reality brings us to the ethical principle of “do no harm.” Is our personal enjoyment worth the environmental cost? The cumulative impact of millions of individual trips is significant, exacerbating a crisis that has far-reaching consequences. This raises questions of intergenerational equity. Our current consumption of fossil fuels impacts not only the stability of the climate for future generations but also their ability to experience these natural wonders as we do today. The contradiction is clear: how can we truly preserve something if our actions in accessing it contribute to its degradation?
Navigating the Ethical Labyrinth: Seeking a Balanced Perspective
Recognizing this ethical tension is the first step. It’s not an either/or choice between visiting national parks and protecting the environment. Instead, we must seek a more nuanced understanding of our responsibilities.
We can significantly mitigate our impact through conscious choices. Opting for sustainable travel options like carpooling, utilizing public transport where available, or investing in electric vehicles can drastically reduce our carbon footprint. Choosing parks closer to home or planning longer, less frequent trips can also be more ethical than short, frequent excursions. Beyond travel, responsible visitor behavior is paramount. Adhering to Leave No Trace principles, supporting local conservation initiatives, and selecting eco-friendly accommodations are all vital steps in minimizing our footprint during our visit.
Furthermore, National Park Services themselves play a crucial role. They have a responsibility to invest in and promote more sustainable transportation options for visitors and to educate the public on environmentally responsible practices. They constantly balance the imperative of providing public access with the critical need for preservation.
The Biophilia Hypothesis, most notably articulated by biologist E.O. Wilson in his 1984 book “Biophilia,” proposes a fascinating idea about the human-nature relationship.
Here are the key points:
Meaning of the Term: “Biophilia” literally means “love of life” or “love of living systems.”
The Core Idea: The hypothesis suggests that humans have an innate, evolutionary-based need or tendency to connect with nature and other living systems. It’s not just a learned preference or a cultural interest; it’s a deep-seated, perhaps even biological, predisposition that has roots in our evolutionary history.
The Evolutionary Rationale: For the vast majority of human history, our ancestors lived in direct, intimate contact with the natural world. Their survival depended critically on understanding, interacting with, and often manipulating their environment – finding food, shelter, recognizing dangers, using plants for medicine, etc. Wilson and others argue that a preference for natural environments that were beneficial for survival (like resource-rich landscapes) and an affinity for other living things (animals for hunting, plants for gathering) became adaptive. This long history of dependence and interaction shaped our brains and our psychology, leaving us with an inherent drive to affiliate with nature.
Manifestations of Biophilia: This innate tendency, according to the hypothesis, manifests in many ways in modern human behavior and preferences, even in urbanized settings. Examples include:
Our preference for views of natural landscapes.
The popularity of keeping pets.
The desire to have gardens, houseplants, or visit parks.
Our fascination with wildlife documentaries.
The restorative and stress-reducing effects we often experience when in natural environments.
The common use of natural motifs and materials in art, architecture, and design.
Significance for Well-being: A core implication of the Biophilia Hypothesis is that maintaining a connection with nature is not just an aesthetic preference or an environmental issue, but is fundamental to human physical, mental, and emotional well-being. If the need to connect with nature is innate, then disconnection could lead to negative consequences for our health and psychological state – a concept sometimes explored under headings like “nature deficit disorder” (though this is a less formal term).
In essence:
The Biophilia Hypothesis posits that our affinity for nature isn’t a coincidence or a luxury, but a fundamental part of what makes us human, hardwired into us by millions of years of evolution. It suggests that our deep attraction to the living world is a vital aspect of our psychological and biological makeup, and fulfilling this need is crucial for human flourishing.
It’s important to note that it is a hypothesis – a powerful framework supported by a great deal of evidence from psychology, biology, and neuroscience, but still a subject of ongoing scientific exploration regarding its precise mechanisms and extent. Regardless, it provides a compelling explanation for why connecting with nature feels so profoundly right and necessary to so many people.
Eudaimonia is an ancient Greek term that is central to Aristotelian ethics and other Hellenistic philosophies. It’s often translated, but no single English word perfectly captures its meaning. Common translations include:
Flourishing
Living Well
Human Flourishing
Well-being
Living a Good Life
Happiness (though this is often seen as a less accurate translation in the modern sense of fleeting pleasure or contentment)
What Aristotle Meant by Eudaimonia in the Context of Human Existence:
The philosopher most famously associated with Eudaimonia is Aristotle, particularly in his work Nicomachean Ethics. For Aristotle, Eudaimonia was not merely a subjective feeling of happiness, like feeling good or pleased. It was something more objective and active, fundamentally tied to the nature of human beings as part of the world they inhabit.
Here are the key aspects of Aristotle’s concept, viewed through the lens of our place within the natural realm:
It’s an Activity Within a Natural Context, Not a Purely Internal State: Eudaimonia isn’t something you have or a state you reach and stay in isolation. It’s about how you live – Aristotle defines it as “an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue (excellence).” Crucially, this “activity” takes place within and interacts with the physical and natural world that humans are intrinsically a part of. Our actions, virtuous or otherwise, unfold within an ecological reality.
It’s Tied to Virtue (Arete) Cultivated Through Interaction: To achieve Eudaimonia, one must live a virtuous life. Virtue (arete) means excellence – excellence in performing the functions unique to human beings. Aristotle argued that the distinguishing function of humans is our capacity for reason and our social nature. Living virtuously means exercising our reason well, cultivating good character traits (like courage, justice, temperance, wisdom), and acting in accordance with these virtues. Cultivating these virtues is often done in response to and within the challenges and opportunities presented by our environment, both human and natural. Patience might be learned from observing natural cycles; humility from confronting nature’s power; wisdom from understanding our limits within the ecosystem.
It’s About Realizing Human Potential as Ecological Beings: For Aristotle, every living thing has a purpose or function (ergon). A flourishing plant grows strong and bears fruit, drawing sustenance from its environment. A flourishing human uses their reason and social nature excellently to live a life of virtue. Eudaimonia is about fulfilling our potential, and this potential isn’t just cerebral or social; it is the potential of a human being, an organism that evolved within and is sustained by the Earth’s systems. Our flourishing is inherently linked to the flourishing of the environment that supports us.
It Requires External Goods, Including a Healthy Environment: While the core of Eudaimonia is virtuous activity, Aristotle acknowledged that certain external goods are necessary conditions or tools. These include things like health, friends, moderate wealth, and good fortune. Extending this, access to a healthy, stable, and vibrant natural environment can be seen as a fundamental “external good” – a necessary foundation and context for individual and collective well-being and the capacity to live a life of virtue and purpose. You cannot easily flourish mentally or physically in a degraded or toxic environment.
It’s a Lifelong Pursuit Within the World’s Cycles: Eudaimonia isn’t a temporary peak of happiness. It’s the result of a lifetime of consistent virtuous activity and striving for excellence. This lifelong process unfolds within the constant presence and ever-changing cycles of the natural world, which provides a continuous backdrop for learning, adaptation, and the practice of virtues like resilience, appreciation, and responsible action towards our surroundings.
In simple terms:
Eudaimonia is the idea of a life well-lived – a life of purpose, meaning, and flourishing that comes from exercising our highest capacities (our reason and social nature) and cultivating excellent character (virtue) as beings deeply embedded within and interdependent with the natural world. It’s about striving for excellence in being human, recognizing that our ability to live well is intrinsically connected to the health and reality of the ecological systems of which we are a part.
Connecting with nature, as discussed in the previous post, can therefore be seen not just as an external activity related to stewardship, but as an integral part of the very pursuit of Eudaimonia itself – fostering the virtues, providing necessary physical and mental conditions, and grounding our sense of self and purpose within the ecological reality of which we are inextricably a part.
In my last post, “Outdoor Activities and Ethical Stewardship: A Reciprocal Relationship,” we explored how engaging with the natural world through activities like hiking, paddling, or simply sitting quietly outside, isn’t just related to environmental stewardship – it is stewardship. We talked about the embodied awareness it fosters and the powerful, personal connection that makes us care.
Today, I want to dig a little deeper. Beyond the crucial work of protecting ecosystems and reducing our impact, why is maintaining this connection with nature fundamentally important? Why does it matter to us, on a level that transcends even the vital need for a healthy planet? The answer, I believe, lies in the deep philosophical and existential threads that weave us into the fabric of life on Earth.
The Illusion of Separation Examined
I previously highlighted the “mistake” of viewing humans and nature as separate entities. Philosophically, this separation is a relatively recent construct, largely amplified by the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, which emphasized human rationality, control over nature, and the idea of nature as primarily a resource for humans. This perspective, often labeled anthropocentrism, places humans at the center, granting moral standing and value primarily to ourselves, and valuing nature based on its utility to us.
But what if the older, more integrated view – shared by many indigenous cultures and ancient philosophies – is closer to a deeper truth? What if we are not just in nature, but of nature? This shifts our perspective towards ecocentrism, or even biocentrism, which suggests that ecological systems, or all living things, have intrinsic value, independent of human needs or preferences.
Acknowledging our place within the natural system, not just upon it, changes everything. It’s not just about our responsibility to nature (as stewards), but our inherent identity as nature. Losing connection isn’t just losing a resource or a place to play; it’s losing a fundamental part of ourselves.
Our Primal Need for Nature
This brings us to a more profound philosophical question: What happens to the human spirit, mind, and being when we are fundamentally disconnected from the natural world?
Erosion of Identity and Place: For most of human history, our identities were inextricably linked to the land, the climate, the plants, and the animals around us. Our stories, myths, and understanding of the world were rooted in natural cycles. Modern life, particularly in urbanized, technologically saturated environments, can leave us rootless, adrift from the deep ecological context that shaped our species. Our connection to nature isn’t just nice; it’s arguably foundational to a complete sense of self and belonging.
The Withering of Wonder and Awe: Nature, in its raw power, intricate complexity, and vastness, is a primary source of wonder and awe. Gazing at a starry sky, standing before an ancient tree, or witnessing the sheer power of the ocean can humble us, expand our perspective beyond our daily routines, and connect us to something larger than ourselves. Philosophically, experiences of awe are vital for cultivating humility, fostering a sense of the sublime, and prompting existential reflection. Disconnection from nature risks intellectualizing the universe, reducing it to data points rather than a living mystery.
Impeding Human Flourishing (Eudaimonia): Philosophers from Aristotle onwards have grappled with the concept of eudaimonia – often translated as human flourishing or living well. While traditionally focused on virtue and community, a growing body of thought and evidence suggests that a connection to nature is not merely beneficial for well-being (reducing stress, improving mood), but potentially essential for full human flourishing. Could it be that living entirely divorced from the natural world prevents us from reaching our full potential as integrated physical, mental, and spiritual beings? The Biophilia Hypothesis suggests an innate human need to affiliate with life and natural systems – a need that, if unmet, leaves us incomplete.
Diminished Ethical Imagination: When nature becomes an abstract concept “out there,” it’s easier to see it only in terms of resources or problems (like pollution or climate change) rather than as a complex web of life with intrinsic worth. Our ethical considerations shrink to the human sphere. Reconnecting physically and emotionally expands our moral imagination, making it possible to extend care and consideration beyond our own species and immediate interests. It cultivates empathy for the non-human world not out of obligation, but out of a felt connection.
More Than Stewardship
My previous post concluded that engaging ethically with the outdoors is stewardship. I would add that it is also an act of profound self-care – not in a superficial, spa-day sense, but in the deepest philosophical sense of nourishing the roots of our humanity.
Maintaining our connection with nature isn’t just about ensuring a healthy planet for future generations (though it absolutely is that). It’s about ensuring the health of the human spirit right now. It’s about remembering who we are, where we come from, and our place within the grand, unfolding story of life.
So, when you head outside, whether it’s for a hike, a quiet sit by a stream, floating a river, or just feeling the sun on your face in a park, remember that you are doing more than just getting exercise or practicing good stewardship. You are engaging in a fundamental act of reconnection – an act that is, perhaps, far more critical to our individual and collective well-being than we have ever given it credit for. You are not just protecting nature; you are, in a very real sense, protecting a vital, irreplaceable part of yourself.
We hear a lot about environmental stewardship. It usually sounds like something external—protecting forests, reducing carbon, preserving endangered species. But stewardship isn’t only about policies and science. It’s also about presence. About showing up. And for many of us, the way we show up is through outdoor activities.
The outdoors isn’t just scenery. It’s a living system we’re part of. And when we engage with it—by walking through it, paddling across it, sitting quietly in it—we form a relationship. That relationship is the root of stewardship.
The Human-Nature Relationship
We tend to talk about humans and nature like we’re separate. That’s a mistake. We’re not visitors to the natural world—we’re members of it. The more we forget that, the easier it becomes to ignore our responsibilities.
Outdoor activities remind us. When you hike a ridgeline, when you surf a quiet break at sunrise, when you fish with your feet in the river—you remember. You feel the weather, the terrain, the rhythm of the world that doesn’t run on human time. And you start to care. Not in the abstract, but in the specific. You want this trail to stay open. You want this reef to stay clean. You want this view to still be here in twenty years.
Embodied Awareness and Responsibility
There’s a kind of awareness that only comes from using your body. Walking a trail gives you a sense of the land’s contours and patterns. Paddling a kayak across a lake tunes you in to currents and wind. You’re not just seeing the world—you’re in it.
That kind of experience builds responsibility. You feel accountable for the places you’ve come to know. It’s hard to litter in a forest you’ve spent hours in. It’s hard to pollute a break where you’ve caught the best wave of your life. You start thinking in terms of care—how to preserve what gives so much.
Stewardship doesn’t start with data. It starts with love. And love starts with time and presence.
The Range of Outdoor Activities
We all connect in different ways. Some people like solo hikes deep into the backcountry. Others like to fish at the local pond. Some sit on a rock and watch birds. Others float down a river with friends and a cooler full of snacks.
Not all outdoor activity is solemn or quiet. Some of it is loud, social, full of laughter. That’s okay. Whether you’re stargazing alone or tubing with twenty friends, you’re still outside. Still breathing air that isn’t filtered. Still feeling sun or wind on your skin.
All these experiences build different relationships with the natural world. And every relationship adds another person who cares. The more diverse the ways we enjoy the outdoors, the stronger the community of stewards becomes.
Preservation Through Use
Some people say the best way to protect nature is to leave it alone. That might be true in certain cases. But in general, use—when it’s ethical—is part of the equation.
Trails get maintained because hikers use them. Surf spots get cleaned up because local surfers organize. Parks get funding because families go there.
Using nature doesn’t mean exploiting it. It means being part of it in a way that supports it. You can hike without damaging. You can fish responsibly. You can float a river without trashing it. Ethical use is possible. And it’s often what keeps outdoor spaces alive and cared for.
The Risk of Disconnection
We live in a world that makes it easy to stay inside. Phones, screens, climate control. You can go weeks without touching soil. That kind of disconnection is dangerous.
When nature becomes “out there,” it becomes abstract. Something someone else will protect. But when you’re out there often, it becomes personal. You notice changes. You notice trash. You start asking what you can do.
Stewardship weakens when we forget our place in the ecosystem. Outdoor activity is one of the best ways to remember.
A Cycle of Care
It’s a loop. The more you engage with the outdoors, the more you appreciate it. The more you appreciate it, the more responsibility you feel. That leads to stewardship. And stewardship leads to better conditions for outdoor activities.
The cycle reinforces itself. The best thing about it? Anyone can enter it, at any point. Whether you’re picking up trash on your run or teaching a kid to cast a line—you’re participating.
You’re part of the system of care.
In Conclusion
You don’t have to be a scientist or an activist to be a steward of the Earth. You just have to show up. Go outside. Use the spaces you love in ways that respect them. Be present. Be responsible.
Maintaining outdoor activities—across the full range of ways we enjoy nature—isn’t separate from stewardship. It is stewardship.
And it’s one of the most accessible, rewarding, and ethical ways we can care for the world we live in.
There are many different philosophies when it comes to how we should protect the environment. Is it acceptable for humans to use natural resources to meet their own needs? Should we take the needs of other animals into account, and if so, when?
Biocentric preservation is one philosophy that tries to answer the question of how we can most ethically protect the environment. In this article, we’ll explore the definition of biocentric preservation and how it compares to another environmental protection philosophy, utilitarian conservation.
Biocentrism is an environmental philosophy that believes all life deserves equal moral consideration. Under biocentrism, not just humans, but all living beings are considered to have intrinsic value. If something is living, then it should be morally valued simply for existing, rather than because of its use for humans.
Biocentrism argues that all life should be valued intrinsically, as every living thing has its own purpose and is working towards its own goals. Because every living being has moral value under biocentrism, it is morally wrong to harm another living being or stop it from pursuing its own goals, even if it is for a human’s benefit.
Preservation is the protection of nature from any use or human interference. Preservationists push to protect areas of land from any alteration. This contrasts with conservation, which argues for the protection of nature through proper use. Conservationists believe that natural resources, including animals, can be used, but they must be used in a way that is sustainable and responsible so that we can continue to use those resources.
Biocentric preservation is the idea that we should protect the environment not because it offers us resources, but because living things have an inherent value that must be preserved. In other words, while conservation focuses on protecting the environment so we can continue to use it, biocentric preservation argues for protecting the environment simply because it has intrinsic value. We must allow nature to continue to flourish and pursue their own self-interests (sometimes referred to as “pursuing their own good.”)
Biocentric Preservation vs. Utilitarian Conservation
In environmentalism, there are two major schools of thought when it comes to why we should protect the environment: biocentric preservation and utilitarian conservation.
Biocentric preservation directly contrasts with utilitarian conservation. Utilitarian conservation is the idea that we must protect nature through proper use of resources so that we can continue using those resources to fulfill human needs in the future. It is a “utilitarian” philosophy because it focuses on the utility, or usefulness, of nature to humans. Classical utilitarianism argues that resources should be used to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Therefore, nature can be conserved for utilitarian purposes.
Biocentric preservation, on the other hand, is the idea that we must protect nature from any human use, and rather, should protect nature because every organism has a right to exist and flourish.
For example, utilitarian conservation would argue for protecting a game animal population, like deer, so that we can continue to hunt deer for food and other resources. This hunting would help meet human needs. On the other hand, biocentric preservation would argue that the deer have an inherent value that we cannot harm, and that it is morally right to allow the deer to continue pursuing its own self-interests. Harming the deer even to meet human needs is not morally acceptable under biocentric preservation.
While many of us are aware of the many environmental problems we face, from climate change to endangered species, we often overlook the ethical issues that these problems raise.
Environmental ethics is a field of study focused on what is moral when it comes to the human relationship with nature, and helps us understand how we can ethically address environmental problems. In this article, we’ll review environmental problems through the lens of environmental ethics. What environmental problems do we face today, and what ethical issues must be considered when addressing these problems?
How Does Environmental Ethics Solve Problems?
The formal field of ethics has existed for centuries, and has historically been focused on what humans owe other humans when it comes to moral treatment. It was only in the late 19th and 20th centuries that we began to see the growth of an academic field dedicated to what humans owe the environment and vice versa. Unsurprisingly, the beginnings of the environmental ethics field were closely intertwined with the beginnings of the modern environmentalist movement. As we strive to solve human-caused environmental problems, such as degradation of natural land or loss of biodiversity, environmental ethics provide us with a roadmap for how to balance human needs with treating nature morally.
There are a number of different ethical philosophies, but there are three main camps: anthropocentrism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism. Anthropocentrists place human needs above nature, while biocentrists believe all life is equal and equally deserving of moral standing. Finally, ecocentrists believe that all parts of nature, including non living things, are equally deserving of moral consideration.
Each ethical environmental philosophy can lead you to different conclusions about how to treat nature – and thus can lead us to different solutions for how to answer environmental or ethical questions. For example, anthropocentrists may argue that it’s morally acceptable to kill animals for meat, while biocentrists and ecocentrists would argue that it is not acceptable to kill animals simply to meet human needs.
Alternatively, these philosophies can all lead to the same conclusion through different reasoning. For example, anthropocentrists may argue for conserving coastal mangrove forests because they provide humans with vital anti-flooding services. On the other hand, an ecocentrist may also argue for conserving coastal mangrove forests not because the trees meet human needs, but because the trees have value in and of themselves.
Environmental Issues with Ethical Implications
Many environmental issues today raise ethical questions, which environmental ethics can help us answer. Examples of these environmental issues include:
Pollution
Climate change
Deforestation
Population Growth
Water scarcity
Overfishing
When attempting to address these environmental problems in a moral way, three guiding questions can help inform our actions:
To act morally, what do we owe nature? How can we treat nature ethically in this situation?
To act morally, what do we owe humans? How can we treat humans ethically in this situation?
How can we balance our moral obligation to nature, if one exists, with our moral obligation to humans?
If you subscribe to an anthropocentrist viewpoint, then your answer to question one is like, we don’t owe anything to nature. Therefore, we must pursue actions that will help us act ethically towards humans.
If you subscribe to a biocentric viewpoint, however, your answer to question one is different and must consider how we can treat living things ethically, not just humans. And if you subscribe to an ecocentric viewpoint, your answer must consider how we can treat all parts of nature, even nonliving things like rocks or water, ethically.
Let’s look at the example of one of the greatest environmental issues we face, climate change, and its ethical implications.
Climate Change and Ethics
The challenge of climate change is clearly an environmental problem, as the climate warmign is impacting natural systems and wildlife. Climate change is also a social problem, as it is already affecting (and will continue to impact) living conditions around the globe. This leads to a major question when designing or weighing climate change solutions: whose needs should we focus on, humans, nature, or both?
Here are a few examples of ethical issues raised by climate change.
Climate change will disproportionately impact impoverished people. (Read more).
Climate change is caused mainly by developed nations, but poorer nations are feeling the impacts more. Do developed countries have a responsibility to act on climate change before poorer countries? (Read more).
Climate change will disproportionately impact women. (Read more).
Climate change threatens the biodiversity of life on Earth. (Read more).
When making decisions about how to deal with the effects of climate change, these ethical questions are ones we must grapple with. While conventional ethical theories can help us understand how to act morally towards other humans, the field of environmental ethics helps us bring nature into the ethical equation.
There are also ethical questions involved with the solutions we choose to address climate change. For example, geoengineering solutions to climate change, in which humans alter the planet’s natural systems in some way to reduce warming, are extremely controversial because of their ethical implications. Geoengineering raises questions such as, do humans have the right to “experiment” on natural systems to provide for their own survival? While we can model the results of geoengineering with some degree of accuracy, there is no way to know what the actual results will be until the action is carried out – there’s no second Earth to test these solutions on. This raises ethical concerns about whether it’s moral to carry out these “experiments” if we don’t know for sure how it will impact anyone or anything.
Environmental ethics is the field of study that focuses on what is moral when it comes to how humans interact with the environment. While there are many books written by numerous philosophers in the field, we’ve pulled together a list of 5 books that have shaped environmental ethics and the environmental movement as a whole.
A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There, one of the most influential books about environmental ethics, was written by the founding father of wildlife ecology, Aldo Leopold. The book describes Leopold’s expeditions and observations through the wilderness of Wisconsin, Iowa, Arizona, Sonora, Oregon, Manitoba, and other regions of North America. It explains in detail how wonderful and important the coexistence of wildlife and the natural world is, and how humans are destroying it for selfish gain. Leopold describes his theory of a “Land Ethic“ in the final part of the book, which calls for an extension of our “community” to include humans and all other parts of nature, including plants and animals, and even soil and water (what he called “the land.”). Leopold was amongst the first modern philosophers to argue that humans are not superior to nature, and thus, are obligated to treat nature morally.
Silent Spring is one of the most important books in the history of the environmental movement. Written by marine biologist and conservationist Rachel Carson, the book describes how the use of chemical pesticides, particularly aerial spraying of DDT for insect control on farms, is tremendously harmful to the environment. Carson blames chemical pesticide companies for the disinformation they provide to the public regarding the true negative effects of the pesticides. The book also emphasizes the importance of the relationship between humans and the environment, which complimented many of the biocentrist arguments put forward by emerging environmental ethical philosophies at the time. Silent Spring argues that because humans are immensely dependent on the resources provided by the environment, it is irrational to neglect the conservation of the environment. While this is an anthropocentric viewpoint in many ways, as it values nature mainly for the resources it provides humans, it still leads to the conclusion that we must protect nature.
The publication of Silent Spring in the 1960s sparked an environmental movement that prohibited the use of DDT and pushed for the creation of laws and regulations that supported a conservation-based approach to our environment.
Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature
Editor: William Cronon
First Published: 1995
Uncommon Ground is one of the most thought-provoking environmental ethics books, as it provides new perspectives on our place in nature. Edited by environmental historian William Cronon, this collection of essays by numerous authors responds to early environmental conservation goals such as the creation of the national parks and city parks, evaluating how these movements place humans in relation to nature. The first essay, The Trouble with Wilderness, written by Cronon himself, describes how politically and logically misguided our environmental preservation goals are. Cronon believes that humans are part of the natural world regardless of how modernized or urbanized they are. According to Cronon, this makes environmentalists’ goals of creating laws and regulations that separate humans from the natural world for the protection of wilderness extremely pointless. Cronon argues that the concept of wilderness is a myth, and instead, we must appreciate all kinds of nature, including the more accessible kinds of nature like a home garden. Uncommon Ground shows us that instead of separating humans from the natural world, environmentalists should aim to educate people on how to become more sustainable and strengthen their ethical relationship with the environment.
Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics
Author: Paul Taylor
First Published: 1986
Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, written by Paul Taylor, an American environmental ethics philosopher, is known to many as the seminal defense of biocentric ethics, the idea that all living things have moral value.The book highlights the concept of biocentrism through biology, moral philosophy, and environmental science, arguing that life should be the sole criterion of who deserves moral standing. Taylor discusses the significance of humanity’s relation to the world and how this relationship demands equal respect. Respect for Nature advocates for humans to cease treating plants and wildlife as mere resources for human needs and amusement.
You can buy access to a digital version of Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics at SCRIBD.
The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law, and the Environment
Author: Mark Sagoff
First Published: 1988
The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law, and the Environment is one of the most influential books relevant to environmental philosophy in the late 1980s. Written by professor of philosophy Mark Sagoff, the book provides insights that focus on the balance between nature’s intrinsic value and its value for human and economic gain. Sagoff believes that through delicate balancing, humans may still achieve a successful economic state using the resources provided by nature while also protecting its inherent value. However, he rejects traditional economic analyses, such as cost-benefit analyses, as appropriate ways to make decisions about environmental choices, arguing that assigning monetary value to nature results in environmental decisions that satisfy private interests, rather than the public good.
You can download a full PDF version of The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law, and the Environment at Cambridge University Press.
We often see environmental activism geared towards protecting animals. While saving the whales and protecting endangered elephants certainly feel like the right things to do, many of us haven’t stopped to consider why this feels right. Do we have a moral obligation to protect animals?
In environmental ethics, animal rights is the belief that animals have moral value separate from how useful they are to humans, and thus have certain rights that must be afforded to them. Like human rights, animal rights are inherent rights intended to protect the basic interests of animals.
In this article, we’ll review the philosophy of animal rights in environmental ethics in order to better understand the moral questions at play in humans’ relationship with animals.
What Are Animal Rights?
Animal rights in environmental ethics is a theory that animals deserve rights just like humans do.
Traditionally, modern societies believe in affording rights to humans based on the understanding that all humans inherently deserve rights. As the U.S. Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” According to this belief, humans inherently deserve rights to pursue their best interests.
The animal rights movement seeks to extend moral rights to animals. Animal rights philosophers argue that animals also have basic interests (for example, the right to live free from suffering) that must be protected. Just like humans, animals have inherent value (regardless of whether the animal is useful to humans) and inherently deserve to be able to pursue their own best interests. Animal rights protect animals’ ability to pursue their best interests.
Animal rights activists support the idea that animals should not be used to meet human needs. For example, animal rights activists would argue against using animals for medical research, cosmetics and other product testing, or sport hunting.
Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare
Animal rights is often confused with a similar term, animal welfare. Animal rights, as we discussed above, is the belief that animals have value in-and-of themselves, and therefore deserve rights to protect their interests. This leads to the argument that animals should not be used to meet human needs like food, clothing, or experimentation. Animal rights activists seek to protect animals from any use by humans.
On the other hand, animal welfare refers to an animal’s quality of life. Animal welfare proponents work to ensure animals have positive experiences in their lives, but do believe that animals can be used by humans as long as it’s in a humane way. For example, while an animal rights supporter might argue for a vegan diet, an animal welfare supporter would argue that we can eat animals and animal products as long as the animals live a pleasant life.
While animal welfare activists focus on reducing animal suffering, they don’t take any moral stance on whether it’s ethical to use animals to meet human needs. Animal rights activists, on the other hand, take a more philosophical stance, arguing that it’s immoral to use animals, and that they have a right to avoid suffering.
Environmental Philosophers on Animal Rights
Most of the field of environmental ethics is focused in some way on animal rights, as all of environmental ethics is concerned with the human relationship with the natural world. However, there are a few environmental ethicists that focus primarily on animal rights.
While all of these philosophers ultimately agree that we should not cause animals harm simply to meet our own needs, each philosopher has a different reasoning for this conclusion and interprets animal rights a little differently. Here, we’ll review a few of the most famous thinkers and their views on animal rights.
Jeremy Bentham: Jeremy Bentham, a famed English philosopher from the 18th-19th century, was one of the first philosophers to argue in favor of animals. He argued that while we can morally use animals to serve our own needs, we should do so in a way that avoids causing any unnecessary harm. He argues against earlier philosophers who said that only rational animals (i.e. only humans) deserve moral treatment; instead, Bentham argues, we shouldn’t decide who gets treated well based simply on whether they can think or reason (after all, he argues, human babies are not rational), but based simply on whether or not they can feel pain. Thus, Bentham’s basis for who deserves moral treatment is whether or not that animal can suffer. If the animal is capable of suffering, as most are, then they deserve “rights” that help protect their interests.
Bentham was one of the first western philosophers to argue that the suffering of animals is just as important as that of humans. It’s important to note, however, that Bentham believed it was still morally permissible to use animals to meet necessary human needs, as long as it was through a painless process (similar to today’s animal welfare supporters). Bentham believed in utilitarianism, or the idea that we should do whatever results in the greatest amount of “pleasure” for the greatest number of creatures – including humans and animals.
Peter Singer: Peter Singer, an Australian eco-philosopher, argued for animal liberation, but against the theoretical framework of “rights.” He argued that we don’t actually need the concept of rights in order to ethically consider our treatment of animals. In his 1985 book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, Singer argues (similar to Bentham) that any being with sentience, or the capacity to feel pain and pleasure, is deserving of moral standing.
Rather than awarding animals with specific rights, Singer argues, we should simply include animals’ interests when making ethical decisions. Singer recognizes that human rights and animal rights cannot be entirely the same. He says, “There are obviously important differences between humans and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have” (Animal Liberation, p.2). Because human and animal rights are different, we should simply focus on avoiding causing pain to the greatest number of beings, both human and animal.
Tom Regan: Tom Regan was an environmental philosopher who is most famous for his animal rights theory. In fact, he’s known to many as the intellectual founder of the animal rights movement. His 1983 book The Case for Animal Rightsoutlines his argument for animal rights. He argues for an extension of rights to “other-than-human” animals. Like Bentham, Regan rejects the idea that only rational beings (i.e. humans) deserve to be treated morally. Instead, Regan argues that animals who are “subjects-of-a-life” are deserving of moral consideration. He defines “subjects-of-a-life” as animals that are not just conscious, but animals that:
“have beliefs and desires; perception, memory, and a sense of the future, including their own future; an emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain; preference- and welfare-interests; the ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; a psychophysical identity over time; and an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares well or ill for them, logically independently of their utility for others and logically independently of their being the object of anyone else’s interests. Those who satisfy the subject-of-a-life criterion themselves have a distinctive kind of value – inherent value – and are not to be viewed or treated as mere receptacles. (The Case for Animal Rights, p.243)
Put simply, any animal that meets the criteria for “subjects-of-a-life” is inherently valuable, regardless of whether or not they serve a purpose for humans or other animals. Any “subjects-of-a-life” are thus deserving of rights to protect their interests. It’s important to note that, under Regan’s theory of animal rights, extending rights to animals must include actually formulating rights under a “social contract.”
Finally, Regan critiques Singer and Bentham’s utilitarianism, arguing that just because an action creates positive outcomes for a larger number of people, if that action is extremely harmful to just one person (or animal), then it’s not morally right. He gives the example of murdering a wealthy person in order to gain their fortune, and then distributing some of that money to charity. While this would result in a greater good (the loss of one life to help many), this is clearly not morally justifiable. This metaphor is used to explain Regan’s belief that killing an animal is such a great harm that it is justified only if it’s necessary and will create a large positive outcome for many people. Regan argues that animal exploitation in modern society, such as meat farming, is often not actually necessary; while killing an animal may bring mildly positive outcomes to many humans, it causes greater harm to the animal, when many of us do not actually depend on meat for health.
The Animal Rights Movement
While the animal rights movement has gained much momentum in the past century, it hasn’t resulted in the creation of many legal rights for animals. Animal rights activism has certainly pushed us to reassess how we view animals and how we treat them – but has not led to codified legal rights for animals in most western countries. However, we have seen some improvements in laws governing animal welfare. For example, the U.S. Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is a federal law that governs how animals in research facilities must be treated.
As more and more people begin taking animal welfare into account, we can likely expect to see more laws concerning the wellbeing of animals spring up. In large part, we have the philosophers of the animal rights movement to thank for helping us begin to view animals as more than basic resources to meet human needs.
Learn more about related environmental ethics:
What Is Biocentrism? Learn the basics about biocentric environmental philosophies, which argue that humans and living creatures deserve equal moral consideration.
What Is Deep Ecology? Learn about another environmental philosophy that takes the rights of the environment, not just living creatures, into account.
John Muir was a naturalist, author, environmental philosopher, botanist, zoologist, glaciologist, and a strong preservationist in the United States. Muir believed that nature must be protected from the destructive hands of people. He fought for the preservation of nature, which led to the establishment of the national parks we enjoy today. This is why he is known as “The Father of National Parks”.
In this article, we will explore John Muir’s environmental philosophies, including what he believed about the human relationship with nature and how his beliefs differed from other environmental philosophers..
Summary: The Basics of John Muir’s Environmental Philosophy
John Muir is most famous for being a preservationist. This means that he wanted to protect nature from all human interference, including responsible use. In his mind, nature was something separate from humans, and human use would harm nature’s pristine, untouched state.
Muir’s environmental ethics are ecocentrist, as he believed nature had intrinsic value separate from the value humans get from nature. In other words, because nature has its own inherent value, regardless of whether humans find use from it or not, nature must be protected.
However, Muir’s environmental philosophies are also somewhat anthropocentrist, as he did value nature for one value it brought to humans: emotions of happiness and wonder. This belief derived from Muir’s involvement in the transcendental movement of the mid 19th century, which emphasized the spiritual power of nature. Muir’s interpretation of transcendentalism heralded time spent immersed in nature as the ultimate spiritual experience.
Let’s review some of John Muir’s beliefs that form his environmental philosophy.
All of life is connected
John Muir believed that all life is connected. At a very young age, he had already developed his interest in the natural world, and continued to study the interconnection between plants, animals, and their environment as he grew.. Muir recognized the importance of these connections and how they maintain the balance of life on our planet, arguing that disrupting this link could disrupt the balance of life. Muir’s early biocentric ethical perspective, or the idea that all life is important and connected, served as a foundation for his life mission of protecting the natural world.
This concept of the interconnectedness of life is perhaps best summed up in John Muir’s 1911 book, My First Summer in the Sierra: “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.”
Nature is divine and must be protected from the destructive hands of people
Deeply influenced by transcendentalism, John Muir viewed the natural world as divine and untouchable, and argued that it must be preserved in its original state. He believed that humans are inherently separate from nature, and that nature should be spared from the insatiable demand of human exploitation. This made him a strong preservationist, encouraging both political and social movements to preserve the natural world. In fact, Muir’s philosophy reached President Teddy Roosevelt, who worked to establish American national parks such as Yosemite, Sequoia, and the Grand Canyon.
While Muir’s belief that nature is divine and must be preserved in this pristine state was crucial to the founding of the National Parks System, it also led to some harmful policies when it came to people already living on this “wilderness” land: Indigenous people. Muir’s argument that land must be preserved separate from any human interference, combined with the creation of national parks, worked to push many Native Americans out of their traditional homelands.
Muir’s belief that humans are separate from nature is also where Muir diverges from other biocentrist and ecocentrist philosophers. For example, Aldo Leopold also argued that all of nature has intrinsic value and, like Muir, argued the best way to encourage people to protect nature is to have them see it. However, Leopold believed that humans are part of nature, and placed less emphasis on nature as a pristine landscape separate from all human interference. Instead, Leopold argued that “conservation is a state of harmony between men and land.”
The way to encourage people to protect nature is to make them see and experience its beauty
John Muir was undoubtedly one of the greatest admirers of the wilderness. He not only dedicated his life to protecting it but also encouraged people to see the beauty of nature as how he sees it. He believed that in this way, people would be effortlessly inspired to protect the environment, for it is in human nature to protect what they love. In one of his letters to a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Ezra S. Carr, Muir said, “I care to live only to entice people to look at Nature’s loveliness,” emphasizing Muir’s unwavering commitment to making the public see the beauty and value of the natural world to save it from industrialization and urbanization.
The fight for preservation should always continue because it is a part of the universal war between right and wrong
John Muir believed that the battle for environmental preservation was crucial and should continue indefinitely. He believed that nature is a place to recharge our mind, body, and soul, and must be protected to serve as an important heritage for future generations. Although preservation may not always win over the needs of a growing nation dependent on natural resources, Muir believed that a sustainable approach to how people utilize natural resources should always be the next best thing to do.
One of John Muir’s greatest legacies is the establishment of the Sierra Club, a non-profit organization that continues to promote environmental advocacies rooted in John Muir’s environmental philosophies and ethics today.
