J. Baird Callicott is probably most famously known as an advocate for Aldo Leopold's The Land Ethic (1949.) The Land Ethic is an environmental ethic which Callicot strongly posits is a holistic and non-anthropocentric ethical theory. In other words, The Land Ethic should, if Callicotts position is correct, be an ethical theory that places collectives, as opposed to just individual living things, as having intrinsic value. It should also be an ethical theory that does not focus on, or allow, Homo sapiens to be considered the only “things” as having moral significance. The Land Ethic, originally sketched out by Leopold is a very concise, yet intricate, piece of literature and Callicott has written many pieces of literature which attempt to explain, unfold, apply and defend Leopold's Land Ethic. The purpose of this essay is to, as clearly and precisely as possible, provide an explanation as to what The Land Ethic consists of, with both references to Leopold and several of Callicot's literatures. Following this an identification of any problems that can be extracted from the theory will then be juxtaposed with Callicott's attempt to defend The Land Ethic and remedy these issues. Finally, after the presentation and analysis of The Land Ethic a decision will be made as to whether The Land Ethic is, what Callicott claims, truly an adequate non-anthropocentric environmental ethic. As mentioned previously, Leopold's Land Ethic is a very concise piece of work for what Callicott has shown to be an intricate, environmental, ethical theory. Callicott has dedicated a lot of time to, explaining the components which make up The Land Ethic as a moral theory and to providing a defence against possible criticisms extracted by other thinkers. High ... ... middle of paper ... ...ecies belonging to each layer depend on those within the lower layers, for energy i.e. food. Therefore, all species within the biota are a part of many interlinking food chains i.e. energy flows and so, the whole structure “...depends on the cooperation and competition of its diverse parts.” (The Land Ethic p.220) Preserving this structure is paramount to The Land Ethic, and to understand how this holistic view should be morally applied to our actions concerning the environment, Leopold produces “...a summary moral maxim, a golden rule, for the land ethic...” (Beyond the Land Ethic, p.68) This maxim is what Callicott considered, initially, as the only moral requirement necessary for us to act rightly. “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community; it is wrong when it tends otherwise.” (The Land ethic, p.223)
Leopold would most likely approve of the work being done to preserve Gorongosa National Park and would agree with Wilson in that nature is our home and we should treat it as such, but Leopold, unlike Wilson, argues that it is our moral obligation, and not just our pleasure, to respect nature. Additionally, Wilson seems to focus specifically on the plants and animals that make up an ecosystem, but Leopold extends his focus to non-living components such as soil and water because they are instrumental in maintaining the integrity of land communities. Leopold might urge Wilson to make sure that he is not simply educating people at Gorongosa, but really help them genuinely understand land ethics. This way, humans can evolve a sense of praise and approval for preserving the integrity and beauty of the biotic community (262), and social disapproval for doing the exact
In my generation, I am able to catch what is relatively the tail end of this slow extinction. And to be quite honest, I had not devoted a moment of thought to this phenomenon until I read Leopold’s passages. In fact, I am always the first one to compliment a new highway project that saves me five minutes of driving or even a tidy farmstead as I pass. Now, more than ever, my thoughts are in limbo. It was just last week when my dad pointed out an area off the highway that displayed miles of slowly rolling cornfields. His reaction was to the beauty of the countryside. Mine was to question his. I found myself thinking about all of the hard work that created that beauty, and then how much more beautiful it was fifty, a hundred, or even two centuries ago. Only the mind’s eye can create this beauty now, and that is exactly why Leopold’s concerns are validated.
Kohak, Erazim V. "Part II." The Green Halo: a Bird's-eye View of Ecological Ethics. Chicago,
In the spirit of Karen Warren, Gould's perspective on environmentalism 'feels right' to me, as I can connect with acts of respect and benevolence towards humans and can easily extend that feeling to the rest of the earth (especially on a personal level where I see the golden rule as the basis for my religious beliefs). However, upon closer examination, I find the suggestion to 'just follow the golden rule' as an environmental ethic problematic when examined in a practical, non-idealized light. Harkening back to the problems encountered in previous discussions of biocentric and ecocentric ethics, I am troubled by the potential outcomes of an environmental ethic such as this.
THE LAND ETHIC - ALDO LEOPOLD The land ethic was published in 1949 as the finale to A Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold’s “Land Ethic” essay is a call for moral responsibility to the natural world. At its core, the idea of a land ethic is simply caring: about people, about land, and about strengthening the relationships between them (Leopold, n.d). The Ethical Sequence The first ethics dealt with the relation between individuals; the Mosaic Decalogue is an example.
In “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments,” Thomas Hill tries to explain why destroying nature is morally inappropriate. His main argument is that rather than asking whether this action is wrong or right, we should ask what kind of person would destroy nature. Beforehand, one view is that since plants have right or interests, one should not violate their interest by destroying them. But Hill’s view is that we cannot address the interests of plants in order to criticize those who destroy the nature, because this approach is good for sentient beings. In this essay I am going to examine whether sentient is a necessary condition for interests to be counted? My upshot is that Hill’s view is correct.
Anthropocentrism has been a central belief upon which modern human society has been constructed. The current state of the world, particularly the aspects that are negative, are reflective of humans continuously acting in ways that are in the interest of our own species. As environmental issues have worsened in recent decades, a great number of environmentalists are turning away from anthropocentric viewpoints, and instead adopting more ecocentric philosophies. Although anthropocentrism seems to be decreasing in popularity due to a widespread shift in understanding the natural world, philosopher William Murdy puts forth the argument that anthropocentrism still has relevancy in the context of modern environmental thought. In the following essay, I will explain Murdy’s interpretation of anthropocentrism and why he believes it to be an acceptable point of
Analyzing human obligation pertaining to all that is not man made, apart from humans, we discover an assortment of concerns, some of which have been voiced by philosophers such as Tom Regan, Peter Singer and Aldo Leopold. Environmentally ethical ideals hold a broad spectrum of perspectives that, not only attempt to identify a problem, but also focus on how that problem is addressed through determining what is right and wrong.
One pivotal point regarding the debate on environmental ethics and the course humans should take is regarding future generations. How do the actions we take today impact those who inherit this planet after us? Some people argue that we do not inherit this world from our parents, but rather borrow it from our future children. Regarding the text Sustainability and Responsibility to the Future, several different viewpoints are offered regarding both sides of the ethics of environmentalism.
Muir’s ideas are not relevant today as he wants people to see and admire the romantic value of nature. Leopold wants people to be responsible for the affect they have in the environment and Muir wants people to see and admire the romantic value of nature. Pinchot’s idea put people in the center, and on the other hand Muir put individuals in focus This can be better explained.
Leopold defends his position the advent of a new ethical development, one that deals with humans’ relations to the land and its necessity. This relationship is defined as the land ethic, this concept holds to a central component referred to as the ecological consciousness. The ecological consciousness is not a vague ideal, but one that is not recognized in modern society. It reflects a certainty of individual responsibility for the health and preservation of the land upon which we live, and all of its components. If the health of the land is upheld, its capacity of self-renewal and regeneration is maintained as well. To date, conservation has been our sole effort to understand and preserve this capacity. Leopold holds that if the mainstream embraces his ideals of a land ethic and an ecological consciousness, the beauty, stability and integrity of our world will be preserved.
Seneca challenges Land owners to be virtuous and not place their focus on the importance of their material (Land) possession in this world, “Who owned the land before your grandfather? You did not enter into this land as an owner but as a tenant.” Seneca goes on to advise men to content with the land they have and learn to share with their brother. This blends in with Seneca’s original stance on virtue and the argument that one must make best of life with the materials that one has been given.
Everyone’s interpretation of environmental justice varies from their degree of belief and understanding of this serious subject. Though politics play a large role in the globalization of the world, it is those politics that have the power to accept or reject people’s notions. Though the characters in Edward Abbey’s book go about making their statement in an unacceptable way, to them, it is thought to make a difference in the amount of expansion they hope will not be made in the western states. As Starhawk states, “we must have respect within to gain it” (30). With the respect of our selves, neighbors and our natural settings, there leaves no room for anything other than improvement.
The most obvious reason that the environment has moral significance is that damage to it affects humans. Supporters of a completely human-centered ethic claim that we should be concerned for the environment only as far as our actions would have a negative effect on other people. Nature has no intrinsic value; it is not good and desirable apart from its interaction with human beings. Destruction and pollution of the environment cannot be wrong unless it results in harm to other humans. This view has its roots in Western tradition, which declares that “human beings are the only morally important members of this world” (Singer p.268).
Anthropocentrism is the school of thought that human beings are the single most significant entity in the universe. As a result, the philosophies of those with this belief reflect the prioritization of human objectives over the well-being of one’s environment. However, this is not to say that anthropocentric views neglect to recognize the importance of preserving the Earth. In fact, it is often in the best interests of humans to make concerted efforts towards sustaining the environment. Even from a purely anthropocentric point of view, there are three main reasons why mankind has a moral duty to protect the natural world.