Animal Ethics and Environmental Ethics
Animal ethics is concerned with the status of animals, whereas environmental ethics
concerns itself with the relationship to the environment. I will show the existence of
animal ethics depends on the existence of environmental ethics. I will prove this by
showing that such philosophers who have practiced animal ethics such as Singer, Regan,
and Taylor are limited because they are individualistic. Which means they are limited to
animal concerns, and nothing else. But with the environmental ethics such philosophers
as Leapold, Wesra and Naess look at the environment ethics collectively. Which means
they look at the big picture which includes the animals and its environment.
I will first look at the views of Peter Singer, who is a utilitarian. A utilitarian is
someone who believes the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. Singer wants
the suffering of animals to be taken into consideration. He states "If a being suffers,
there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into
consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality
requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering...". What this
means is that the suffering of animals is not justified. He also states how he thinks a
major way to stop the suffering of animals is to stop the experimenting on animals. He
states"...the widespread practice of experimenting on other species in order to see if
certain substances are safe for human beings, or to test some psychological theory about
the effect of severe punishment or learning...". When he is talking about the
experiments and suffering of animals. He is concerned most with domestic animals, he is
not too concerned with the other animals in the word. Views like these make Singer
limited.
Singer is limited and individualistic because he is not concerned with the environment
in which animals live and since he is a utilitarian, equality is not something he is
concerned with. Even other philosopher criticizes the utilitarian point of view
exhibited by Singer. Regan protests "Utilitarian has no room for the equal moral rights
of different individuals because it has no room for their equal inherent value or worth.
What has value for the utilitarian is the satisfaction of an individuals interests, not
the individual whose interests they are". If things are not given equal rights, that
includes the environment there will be a tomorrow to look forward to.
Singer has also been known to show a lack of compassion and sympathy. As stated by
Westra "IT is probable that, at a minimum, instrumental values has always been ascribed
to those animals which have contributed in some way to the human community down through
ages...Still it is possible to raise doubts about sympathy, as many claim to have no
such feeling, including such animals defenders as Singer". Westra goes on to describe
how Singer is not only unsympathetic to that of animals with intrinsic value but to those
people in the third world. Singer feels that since the people of the third world are so
far away that it is not of his concern. Singer wants the suffering of animals to stop
because it is not justified, but what makes the suffering of third world countries
justified? Because they are further away? Such individualistic approaches will not save
the habitat in which the animals live and without that the environment will not survive.
Singer is not the only one with an individualistic approach.
Another philosopher of environmental ethics Tom Regan also displays the individualistic
approach. Regan believes in Cantianism. What that means is that the individuals have
rights. Regan has modified it a bit to say that everyone is subject to a life. Regan
believes that animal and humans all have intrinsic value, therefor they have a right to
life. He calls for three changes "1) The total abolition of the use of animals in
science. 2) The total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture. 3) The Total
elimination of commercial and sport hunting". He believes that animals should not be
treated as our resources. he also believes that since everyone is subject to a life
people should not believe in contractarianism. Contractarianism states that in order to
gain morality you must be able to sign and understand a contract and if they can not sign
a contract (i.e. infant) you do not have the right to morality. But Regan also views
things individualisticly.
He, like Singer also looks at the concerns of animals, of "Value". Those animals used
in science experiments, agriculture, and commercial and sport hunting. But what about
the animals not included in the list, who is going to protect the rights of those
animals? Without all animals and especially the environment. Regan will not just have
to worry about the reform of animal rights.
The last philosopher concerned with animal ethics in which I am going to look at is Paul
Taylor. He is an egalitarian, which means everyone's interests count and count equally
with the like interests of everyone's else's. He argues that humans are no more valuable
than any other living thing put should see themselves as equals. He calls for two
changes "1) Every organism, species population, and community of life has a good of
its own which moral agents can intentionally further or damage by their actions....2)
The second concept essential to the moral attitude of respect for nature is the idea of
inherent worth". What this means is to respect everything and everyone even if that
means the little creepy crawlies on earth. But if we respect everything intern we are
respecting nothing.
One of Taylor's biggest flaws is that he has no hierarchy which intern some animals lose
out. Westra sums it up best "Further, it is such an intensely individualistic ethic
that it requires me to consider every leaf I might pick from a tree, every earthworm that
might be lying across my path. It will also be extremely different to apply to
aggregates, such as species, or community, such as ecosystems". With no hierarchy he
is looking at things individualistic which means something is going to lose out.
Another problem with Taylor's that he can be applied to animal ethics as well as
environmental ethics in order to make a stranger argument he should stick to either one
or the other.
One way we can avoid this individualism outlook is to look at things holistically such
as Leapold. He believes that we should see ourselves not as conquerers of the Land but
as members of the community. He proposes we can do this by having a land ethic. The
Land Ethic states "the land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to
include soils, waters, plants, and animals a collectively; the land". This is like an
animal ethic but expanded to include the environmental ethics. He also proposes we have
a land pyramid which consists of "1) That land that is not merely soil. 2) That the
native plants and other animals kept the energy circuit open; others may or may not. 3)
That man made changes are of a different order than evolutionary changes, and have
effects more comprehensive than is intended or foreseen". The land pyramid states that
changes must be made to the whole ecosystm and everything in it. It looks at things
collectively. But lie everything it has its faults.
When we are looking at things holistically we are leaving some things out. And for
whose to say that the land pyramid is correct, and will work? Who is Leapold to decide
how and what is more important than other things.
Another philosopher who views the world collectively is Westra. Westra is concerned
with the principle of integrity. She states that " 'Integrity' thus includes the
wholeness of a living system". Therefor she wants to look at the ecosystem as a whole.
She protests that there are four sections of ecosystem integrity. They are first
ecosytem health. The second is the capacity to withstand stress and regenerate itself
afterward. The third is optimum capacity (for place and time, including biodiversity).
The fourth is the ability to continue development and change. With these four features
an environment has a good chance of survival.
Another reason why she has a holistic approach is because she says "It counsels respect
for the basis of life as well as for all entities living within ecosystems, including
animals, which would involve the abolition of agribusiness, factory farming, and all
other wasteful, explosive practices". She believes everything should be looked at as
equal. But her views are too controversial.
Westra sates that there should be an abolition of agribusiness, but she herself admits
that she eats 'free-range' chicken. It to is an agribusiness so why does it make it OK
for free-range? And if we are looking at things holistically who is she to say that one
type of business is any better than factory farming or agribusiness. Sure they are
taking advantage of animals, but if she is to look at things holistically any business
that runs successfully involves expletive practices in some manner.
The last philosopher of environmental ethics in which I am going to look at is Arne
Naess. He looks at the environment in terms of deep ecology. What this means is that 1)
holistic perspective. 2) biospherical egalitarianism (everyone's valuable). 3)
principles of diversity and symbiosis. 4) anticlass posture, no racism, no sexism. 5)
fight against pollution and resource depletion. 6) complexity not completion, cutting
up science. 7) local autonomy and decentralization. They are a matter of steps or
hierarchy and you have to start from the bottom and start fixing till you make it to the
top. Or should I say if you make it to the top because if you can not fix each level you
can not continue to the next level until its fixed. But this way of looking at things
can cause problems.
Viewing the world like this could leave us right were we started from because if we can
not fix it we can not move on. Another problem is when you get near the top of the steps
you hit a point where you should look at things threw an egalitarian point of view.
Which can bring you back to where you started from because you are supposed to respect
everything which intern you end up respecting nothing.
In conclusion do to the arguments I have shown, we can conclude the existence of animal
ethics depends on the existence of environmental ethics. I have shown this by
demonstrating the individualistic ways in which Singer, Regan and Taylor look at this
world will only save the rights of animals , and the world can not survive with just
animals. I have also shown that by demonstrating the holistic views of Leapold, Westra,
and Naess will preserve the rights of the environmental as a whole.
|