UNIT 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS*

Structure

3.0 Objectives

3.1 Introduction

3.2 What Matters?

3.3 Anthropocentric Ethics

3.4 Animal-centred Ethics

3.5 Biocentric Ethics

3.6 Ecocentric Ethics

3.7 Climate Change

3.8 Let Us Sum Up

3.9 Key Words

3.10 Further Readings and References

3.11 Answers to Check Your Progress

3.0 OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this unit are,

• to develop an understanding of issues in environmental ethics,

• to make the learners conversant with the various approaches to environmental ethics,
• to make the learners appreciate the gravity of the issue of climate change in current
times.

3.1 INTRODUCTION

*
Dr. Pragati Sahni, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, University of
Delhi.
47
The state of the environment is not good. We are witness today to severe environmental
destruction, loss of biodiversity and devastating pollution. Species are dying out. Climate
change is more and more visible: be it in previously unheard-of high temperatures, extreme
rainfall, cyclones or drought. If we open any newspaper we are inundated with the effects of
weather-related calamities: lives are lost, homes are ruined and diseases have broken out. We
realize today that the resources nature provides us are not endless. The forests where we cut
trees are now bare; cities are running out of water as rivers dry out; fish in many seas and
oceans are reduced due to overfishing and lack of sustainable practices. There is widespread
awareness that something needs to be done to address these vital matters. But are we morally
obliged to act in response to them?

Environmental ethics, as a branch of ethics and under the rubric of philosophy, arose in the
1970s precisely with the dawning realization that nature was valuable and its bounties were
limited and that to act in a way that respected and protected the environment could be
considered legitimate moral behaviour. Environmental ethics is now an important discipline
and is widely taught in many philosophy departments all over the world. It may be defined as
a form of applied ethics that determines the rightness and wrongness of actions directed
towards nature.

Environmental ethics seeks to find principles and concepts, formulae and norms in order to
determine the morality of actions concerning nature. In other words, it seeks a way to answer
moral questions that arise in situations to do with nature. Moral questions in general, though
intangible, are of crucial importance to decision-making. For instance, a person may wish for
euthanasia to relieve her of unbearable pain and suffering. This could lead to a discussion
about the nature of the patient’s disease or about the type of medication to be administered, if
euthanasia is permitted, that may put the patient out of her misery but the moral question
would be about the rightness or wrongness of the act of euthanasia itself and what it means
for the patient to die in this way. Similarly in capital punishment, there could be questions of
the cost of the process and the method of ending life to be adopted but an applied ethicist
would look deeper into questions of fairness, the nature and extent of punishment and other
similar considerations. An environmental ethics is similarly structured. Should trees be cut
down for very valid economic reasons? Should animals be hunted as a source of
entertainment? Should mines be dug for rare precious stones? Each of these actions, if
undertaken, would lead to some environmental changes. But to an ethicist these actions raise

48
moral questions as well such as, for instance, how trees and animals are to be valued; an
ethicist would look deeper to determine conceptions of good or bad that ought eventually to
guide final decisions. This is what an environmental ethicist is challenged with and she must
seek ethical ways and means for fulfilling this undertaking.

Environmental situations often also present choices. There are several ways of tackling an
issue, of addressing a situation, and reasons ought to be found why one way is to be preferred
over others. Discussed below are some examples:

In a remote forest, due to a dwindling predator population, the deer are prospering. However,
as the number of deer increase, they appear to eat more and more grasses and plants leaving
little for other animals, thus endangering the lives of the latter. Ought some external measures
for limiting the deer population be put in place to safeguard others animals? Or ought nature
be allowed to take its course?

A scientist creates a vehicle that can propel itself without petroleum and related products.
However, it is very expensive to buy and it takes some effort to drive. My older diesel vehicle
is very polluting. But it runs smoothly and easily and is cost effective. Ought I to continue
driving my older vehicle or replace it?

Discussed above are two hypothetical situations. In each of these situations one is faced with
a choice. How can one decide? Environmental ethicists are very aware of such situations as
well. In order to address questions to do with identifying the right and wrong in
environmental situations and deciding what choices to make environmental ethicists have
found reasons and developed theories, some of which will be examined in the discussion
given below.

3.2 WHAT MATTERS?

One way commonly adopted by ethicists for determining how to answer the above questions
is by knowing what matters or what can be designated as a moral end. When an entity is seen
as a moral end, moral behaviour can be extended to it. This means that its existence and
wellbeing counts, and therefore only those actions that contribute to it positively are right
actions. This implies that actions that harm the entity are wrong. Deciding what matters or
what entity is a moral end however is not a random or arbitrary choice but rather a matter of

49
sound reasoning. A criterion or standard or reason must be identified and the entity in
question must meet it to qualify as a moral end.

Generally, and most commonly four types of natural entities get highlighted by
environmental ethicists with each adding to an ever-widening circle of what matters: human
beings, animals, all living entities including trees and plants and finally, geographical features
including mountains and rivers and collectives such as ecosystems. Correspondingly, the
ethics are called anthropocentric, animal-centric, biocentric and ecocentric respectively.
These and what they entail will be examined in the next few sections in detail.

The entities recognized as moral ends can also be considered as possessors of value. Value
has come to be understood as of two types in environmental literature. An entity can be an
end in itself and be valued for its own sake. This kind of value is referred to as intrinsic value
and has been referred to above. My parents or my children, for instance, have intrinsic value.
That is, they have worth no matter how they contribute to my life. Entities can also be valued
as means to some other end as paracetamol is considered a means of reducing fever and
restoring health, where it is health that is considered as the end. This kind of value is called
instrumental value. In general, intrinsic value is what environmentalists seek to establish as
they believe valuing natural entities intrinsically would be steadier and ensure consistent
respect and protection.

Check you Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1. What do you understand by environmental ethics? What does it seek to do?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.3 ANTHROPOCENTRIC ETHICS

50
When what matters the most are human beings an anthropocentric ethics is envisaged. In this
type of ethics all decisions are to be made keeping in mind the interests of human beings.
This means that if an action is done to the benefit of human-beings then that action is the
right action. Therefore, if human beings are entertained by hunting, then that is the right
action to undertake. The criterion generally adopted here is rationality or self-consciousness.

Some ethicists argue that anthropocentrism alone is our starting point. This is because as
humans ourselves we are only able to care directly for our own interests. Considering
anthropocentrism in this way, they say, makes it a rational approach. This is not to suggest
that the interests of others do not count at all. They may count and depending on how and to
what extent they count, anthropocentrism may vary from extreme to moderate forms.

3.3.1 Extreme anthropocentrism

This anthropocentrism is often associated with narrow self-interests. Actions that attend to
human needs and interests are the only ones that can be considered as right actions.
Anthropocentrism, when reduced to its most extreme form, invites criticisms for various
reasons. It is considered somewhat selfish to believe that only human interests and needs
count.

3.3.2 Moderate anthropocentrism

In this anthropocentrism though decisions are based upon human interests, the interests of
others are reasonably included in most cases by rationalizing that the wellbeing of the two is
invariably related. Moderate anthropocentrism is thus associated with enlightened self-
interest. This form of anthropocentrism has gained popularity amongst those who believe that
completing neglecting anthropocentrism is not sensible as it is a denial of human identity. By
recognizing human interests and recognizing at the same time how the interests of others are
tied up with these interests it hopes to strike a balance. Furthermore, this anthropocentrism
acknowledges that human beings themselves add many values that can have a positive impact
on the protection of environment.

3.4 ANIMAL-CENTRED ETHICS

In this type of ethics moral concern is extended to human beings and animals. Various
reasons can be given for including animals. A central one is sentience (and therefore ethicists

51
sometimes refer to this extension as sentientism). The word sentience, taken in a general
sense, conveys the capacity to feel pain and pleasure. Since animals have this capacity, argue
ethicists, their interests should matter morally. Often, we do not wish to harm or pain other
humans just as we don’t want to be harmed by others. The very same logic is extended to
animals too. They suffer and thus we should not harm them or create conditions that do.

The treatment of animals has been of interest to philosophers since time immemorial. For
instance, the early Greek philosopher Pythagoras spoke of vegetarianism and found both
spiritual and the ethical reasons for supporting it. But, contrarily, Cartesian philosophy, that
followed many hundreds of years later, through its sheer dualism reduced animals to matter
alone. This framework implied that animals were of no worth or value, and were fit to be
treated as resources only. Contemporary philosophers such as Peter Singer and Tom Regan
argue strongly against such views and support the moral consideration of animals. These
philosophers have based their arguments on sentience and animal rights (based on animals
being subjects-of-a-life) respectively. The rights argument is considered to be strong grounds
for according dignity to animals and respecting their basic needs of life, food and a suitable
environment.

When we speak of animals, we must acknowledge that there are animals that exist in the wild
and those that are domesticated. The number of animals in wilderness has seen a rapid
decline as civilisation increases and human beings inhabit more areas covered by forests.
With both human beings and animals vying for resources and space, severe displacement and
extinction of many wild animals is an expected outcome. Furthermore, wild animals may be
hunted for entertainment or for food or for resources such as ivory and bone and are further
threatened through such practices. For a sentientist the latter practices would qualify as
unethical.

Where domesticated animals are concerned, the arguments are equally complicated. Those
ethicists who support that animals matter morally object to cruelty towards domesticated
animals as well. What comes to mind immediately is kicking an animal or hitting one with a
stick. But cruelty can be seen in different ways, for instance in killing animals for food.
Animals may be raised to be eaten, either in farms or in factory farms. The latter are
industrial facilities (mostly seen in Western countries) devoted to the production of meat and
other animal products. These farms have become infamous for their treatment of animals:
animals here are simply part of a mechanized process and raised inhumanely and unnaturally.
52
The concept of factory farms thus is often under a scanner and invites moral debate.
However, even the so called ‘humane farming’ of animals, where they are raised kindly but
eventually sacrificed to a butcher’s knife, is not free from controversy.

Apart from questions about how animals are raised for food, animal experimentation is
another matter that is often debated. Ought animals be put through agonizing treatment in
laboratories for the sake of scientific and medical breakthroughs that will save human lives?
The outcomes of such debates vary. Some believe that animals can be sacrificed for the larger
human interest. This may be considered an anthropocentric justification. However, a radical
animal rights stand may not permit such a violation of animals and therefore reject animal
testing completely. There may be other stands that may argue that animal experimentation be
undertaken for the most urgent and pressing reasons and with great consideration for the
suffering animals by using sufficient pain killers etc. But even this kind of selective and
careful experimentation may be rejected on the ground that admitting exceptional cases
dilutes principles making them ineffective.

The creation of zoological parks (zoos) is also considered as a form of cruelty by many and
once again moral arguments are offered against them. It is often said in support of zoos that
they are entertainment and educational devices that may also be beneficial for the protection
of endangered species. In response it may be said that notwithstanding, zoos rob animals of
their freedom and of the opportunity to live their lives in their natural surroundings.
Moreover, with such an advance in technology three dimensional images of animals may
provide a good enough education. All the above are some examples of how the treatment of
animals invites ethical discussion.

There is no doubt that rethinking about how we treat animals is bound to lead to many
lifestyle changes that we take for granted including what we eat, what we wear and how we
entertain ourselves among others. Stopping animal experimentation may create even deeper
problems. However, many animal-centred ethicists suggest that we can start with at least
giving up some acts or objects involving animals that are trivial and not life endangering for
us. Even the smallest changes, they believe, will make a big difference to the lives of animals.

3.5 BIOCENTRIC ETHICS

As a moral position, biocentrism includes all living entities. Since plants are living entities,
they are also considered as deserving of moral attention like human beings and other animals.
53
However, the criterion for inclusion of all that is living has to be different. It cannot be
sentience as this would exclude many non-animal life forms. (In general, environmental
literature supports the premise that plants are not sentient.) In biocentrism the criterion is
rather the struggle for survival and the capacity to be benefited or harmed. The narrower
criterions therefore either of sentience or of consciousness and rationality are thus expanded
further. Paul Taylor is a prominent ethicist supporting biocentrism.

A tree may not be conscious like an animal or a human being yet it will undertake necessary
steps that aid its survival. A common experiment taught to children at school is to place a
plant indoors in a shady corner of a room away from windows. They are asked to observe the
plant through the next couple of days and weeks. Children report back that the plant has
changed the direction of its leaves towards that window open to sun shine. Most plants can be
seen to display such characteristics. Their roots may go deeper in search of water or they may
grow higher in search of sunlight. They respond to good and bad surroundings and change
themselves to make the most of their environment. When biocentrism includes plants as
moral ends it is considering such features of plants and their capacity to survive. This
capacity is not passive even though they do not exhibit conscious preferences or feelings and
may not respond with happiness or joy.

However, if human beings, animals and plants are at par how can decisions be taken when a
choice is to be made amongst them? In order to address this difficulty most forms of
biocentrism acknowledge that equal interests are to be treated equally. This is a practical
stance that supports the decision-making process. It suggests that a preference can be made
on the basis of higher or more complex interests. Thus, an entity with simpler interests like a
Neem tree is more likely to be overlooked in favour of one with stronger interests like a
camel. Sometimes other things may matter too such as were the Neem tree on the verge of
extinction, it would also be a worthy contender of moral attention. Some more radical forms
of biocentrism support, on the contrary, egalitarianism i.e., all entities are to be treated
equally. This undoubtedly can create practical problem.

Check your Progress II

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

54
1. What is the difference between an animal-centred ethics and a biocentric one?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.6 ECOCENTRIC ETHICS

Other environmental ethicists believe that what matters goes beyond life and includes the
natural world observed as full of rivers and seas, mountains and soil, as they all share the
feature of being natural. The property of being a natural entity becomes the criterion for being
identified as a moral end. This kind of ethics thus extends itself the most including the
entities named above and more as deserving of moral consideration. It identifies animals and
human beings, trees and plants as moral ends. But further to that, rivers, marshes and
mountains matter as well.

However, this approach differs in one crucial way. In all the forms of ethics so far, it is the
individual that matters and is of value. On the other hand, when natural entities are looked
upon not individually but as a cohesive whole, i.e., holistically, the foundation of an
ecocentric ethics is laid. All and not some natural entities contribute in making their
surroundings what they are. Thus, ‘what matters’ here are not individual entities but rather
entities in their interrelations. Moral ends thus include natural ecosystems and biodiversities.
This way of moral extension is therefore quite different from all the others with their
individualistic approach. A holistic ethics generally derives inspiration from ecology (a
science that deals with the interrelationship of organisms and their environments) and can be
influenced by ideas like that of GAIA (the Gaia principle suggests that everything on the
planet, organic and inorganic, forms one system that regulates itself and that all aspects
together contribute to the stability and optimization of life).

A holistic ethics is unique in seeking to protect biota, land and communities that can be found
within nature. This implies that certain things may be sacrificed in order to maintain this
balance. Thus, if some animals are to be culled in order to cut populations for a more stable
ecosystem, then this task would be morally permitted. Such a decision may however go
against those who support animal rights. Thus, variations in solutions reached through the
55
practice of one form of ethics or another are a distinct possibility. Another instance of such a
variation was described above: animal testing may be acceptable on anthropocentric grounds
but will not be acceptable to someone who wants to ensure the end of animal suffering.

Adopting any one ethical position comes with its own distinct problems. The problems that
arise with a strong anthropocentrism have already been discussed above. Animal-centred
ethics may be considered too narrow neglecting many important parts of nature. Also
focusing on the welfare of individual animals may not always be conducive to a balanced
ecosystem. Biocentrism on the other hand has to try hard to defend itself as it must establish
the value of all life even though such life may have no sentient interests. Finally, ecocentrism
can be criticized simply for the reason that wholes are nothing more than collections of
individuals and it is difficult to place value on the whole as such. It can be added here that
there are critics of these ethics of extension, that is of all the positions described above,
saying that situations ought to be judged for what they are and decisions ought to be taken
keeping in mind the context. Judging through narrowly focused ethics such as these may
create added problems for decision makers.

3.7 WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE?

The above is just one of the first steps of how an environmental ethicist must proceed in her
appraisal. Most environmental problems in application however are very complex and require
deeper analysis. In this part we will look at one particular environmental issue in detail to
understand what an ethicist must face in the real world: that issue is climate change and it
will be discussed through four questions.

Climate change is the sustained change in climate and weather patterns over a period of time.
Though changing climate is not a new phenomenon in earth’s history, it is worrying today
because gradual and slow climatic alterations have been replaced by unprecedented and
accelerated changes. These are attributed to increased amounts of green-house gases (GHG)
such as carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. GHG’s play an extremely important
role in the regulation of the temperature of our planet. These gases allow the heat of the sun
to enter the earth’s atmosphere but do not allow all of it to escape, and thereby they are
responsible for maintaining temperatures that are conducive to the existence of life.

With a steady increase in the production of GHGs since the industrial revolution the balance
of these gases in the atmosphere has been disturbed and more heat than required is being
56
retained. The industrial revolution sparked off a kind of development that is heavily reliant on
burning fossil fuels which emit carbon dioxide. The type of activities in the present-day
industrial set-up, vehicular emission and life style choices have also added to the rapid
increase of GHGs. This has led to global warming and to changes in climatic conditions.
Thus, the reason for climate change is considered to be anthropogenic i.e., due to human
activities. In the past there was some denial of human interference and it was said that climate
change was a natural phenomenon. Even though such speculation continues to exist, it now is
an almost unanimously accepted conclusion that human activities are largely to blame.

The changes in climate are reverberating through-out the world in unexpected and severer
weather conditions, as mentioned in the introduction. Scientists have warned of the effects of
melting glaciers, rising sea levels and altered ocean currents. It is believed that the results of
climate change in the future are going to be harsher and some effects can already be seen: the
frequency and force of hurricanes has increased, rainfall patterns are either on the upswing
(causing flooding) or reduced greatly in intensity (causing droughts). Heat waves are
commonly seen and forest fires are uncontrollable. Even though the exact effects of climate
change cannot be predicted with certainty through the science that exists today, that its
impacts will be extreme seems accepted by the scientific community.

3.7.1 Who will be affected by Climate Change?

There is no doubt that severely changing weather conditions will affect human beings. The
unexpectedness of changes will make it hard to defend lives and homes and infrastructure.
Farming, fishing and other forms of food production will suffer losses. Diseases that thrive in
warmer climates will spread. It is estimated that changing sea levels will drown low lying
areas and lead to large scale migration. The effects of climate change can lead thus to severe
displacement of human communities. It is often pointed out that flooding and famines will
affect the poor more than the rich and developing nations more than the developed ones.

However human beings will not be the only ones affected. Animals, plants and ecological
systems also stand to lose heavily. The speed at which the climate is changing leaves very
little room for species to adapt to their new conditions. Thus, some species may be wiped out
completely. Dangers especially to marine species with changes in oceanic temperatures and
water composition are becoming more and more visible. The wellbeing of future beings, both

57
humans and non-humans, is also at stake. Many effects of climate change not visible today
will show up in the future and affect those who are yet to come.

3.7.2 Why is Climate Change a Moral Issue?

Thus far it seems that determining the nature of climate change is a matter that may lie in the
domain of science. However significant reasons can be found that show that climate change
is a moral matter as well.

If climate change is being accelerated by human activities, then human beings are responsible
for it. This raises questions of responsibility. If a pilot has flown a helicopter without
completing her training leading to a crash or if a doctor has performed a surgery in an
inebriated state leading to a death, then it would be reasonable to hold them responsible for
what happened respectively. Both the pilot and the doctor have the moral responsibility not to
undertake an action that causes a harm and in doing so they have committed a wrong.
Similarly, if climate change has happened due to the actions of human beings due to which
harm has been caused then they ought to be held responsible. However, the matter here is not
as simple as in the examples. The link between the action undertaken and harm caused is not
a direct one in climate change. Ethical discussions on climate change have shown time and
again that the cause (our actions) and effect (global warming) are separated both in space and
time. What I do today in one part of the world could have an effect in another part of the
world many decades later. Due to this lapse, it is hard to identify who exactly is responsible
and to what extent and this dilutes the process of pinning blame and holding anyone
responsible.

This discussion leads to the second problem that is faced by ethicists. Since the effects of
human actions done today will show later it will affect (or harm) future generations and their
wellbeing. But what do we owe future generations? Many believe that we owe them nothing
as moral decisions must be made keeping recipients in mind. In this case the recipients don’t
exist. Many others argue that we must leave the world in a liveable shape for future people. If
this is accepted then problems may arise when resources have to be shared between the
present and future generations. Questions can be raised then whether the interests of the
present living generation can be sacrificed for the non-existent generations that are to follow.

This discussion shows that problems of justice between generations are inevitable. However,
the question of justice rears up in other matters too. One way of tackling climate change is
58
through reducing carbon emissions. But who will reduce these? Is the burden to be taken by
developing countries at the expense of development or by developed countries that that will
require their citizens to make several lifestyle changes? Historically it is the developed
countries that have added huge amounts of GHGs and therefore it seems just that they be the
ones to curb their emissions. However, it is noted that these countries never knew this cost of
development and that it was an unintentional consequence for which they cannot be blamed
in retrospect. Added to the justice debate is also the difference between carbon emissions
between the rich and poor populations within countries. Many ethicists opine that the poor,
who are the least responsible for the problem, will suffer the most in its aftermath. Thus,
questions of fairness between developed and developing countries, the rich and poor and
present and future generations complicate matters considerably.

So far, we have discussed moral matters concerning human beings. By its very nature our
discussion has been within the bounds of an anthropocentric ethics. However, if we chose to
pursue a non-anthropocentric ethic, say biocentrism or ecocentrism, then the effect of climate
change on plants and animals would also have to be considered. This would increase the
scope of action needed and can become a contentious issue when limited resources are to be
shared between human and non-humans.

Check your Progress III

Biocentric ethics: This ethics extends moral status to all entities that are living and in doing
so questions the narrow range of anthropocentric ethics.

Climate change: Sustained change in climate and weather patterns over a period of time is
referred to as climate change.

Ecocentric ethics: This is a holistic ethics that values the whole of nature (including
ecosystems) rather than individuals.

1. What is the cause of climate change?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.7.3 How is Climate Change being addressed?

The world has had to come together to address climate change since it is a global matter that
will have repercussions in every corner of the planet. International panels and agencies
representing numerous countries have been set up. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) was set up in the 1980’s involving governments, scientists, think tanks and so
on and since then has been giving timely scientific reports on climate change. The United
Nations also set up a secretariat in 1992 as a result of many countries adopting the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In 1997 the Kyoto protocol
was adopted which like the UNFCCC is an international agreement whose signees were
committed to certain targets in the reduction of GHG emissions. The Paris Agreement is also
an example of a milestone agreement to address climate change even more forcefully and to
increase and improve actions and undertakings for the sustainable reduction of GHG’s. The
UNFCCC secretariat regularly holds negotiating sessions as well called Conference of the
Parties (COP) for the same (the latest one was held in November 2021).

In a recent report IPCC has concluded that the world must remain limited to a temperature
increase of 1.5ºC. A press release issued by this body says:

Limiting global warming to 1.5ºC would require rapid, far reaching and unprecedented changes in all
aspects of society…With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, limiting global warming to 1.5ºC
compared to2ºC could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society…(8 Oct
2018, ipcc.ch/news_and_events/pdf/press/PR_SROCC-SRCCL_review_final.pdf)

Limiting global warming in this way and undertaking responses that check rising
temperatures requires what have come be known as mitigation efforts. Reducing the causes of
climate change such as carbon emissions are covered by mitigation. Though the above-
mentioned agreements may set down some guidelines and methods of proceeding with
attaining mitigation targets, eventually the governments of countries have to take on the
mantle of applying the guidelines and making suitable changes, say by increasing subsidies
on solar and wind power or increasing taxation on vehicles to curb their demand and so on.

Another method of addressing climate change is through adaptation. This can include all
actions that are undertaken to adapt or adjust to the effects of climate change. These may
60
include managing and safeguarding of forests and ecosystems and protecting species,
planning for situations of food and water shortages, developing crops that are flood or
drought resistant, fortifying of coastlines such that can survive rising sea levels and
developing infrastructure that withstands harsh weather conditions.

Both the level and type of adaptation and mitigation have the scope of becoming moral issues
as soon as questions are posed about how nations and individuals ought to contribute to them.
It is ethicists that opine whether the contribution will be based on the history of carbon
emissions or on their GDP and finances or on the number of persons that may suffer as a
result. These tough questions are hard to answer and subject to much disagreement. The
agreements mentioned above are thus are fraught with difficulty, dogged by disagreement
and argument. However, time is fast running out and the climate crisis needs to be attended to
urgently both by nations and by individuals.

3.8 LET US SUM UP

By extending the limits of morality to non-human beings, most forms of environmental ethics
go beyond earlier traditional moral views that were limited to human beings alone. The earth
is home to humans and non-humans and considerations of extension appear legitimate.
Environmental ethicists have adopted other approaches too that provide alternative ways of
reviewing the rightness and wrongness of actions concerning the natural world. However,
whatever the approach, recognizing and respecting the value of nature remains primary.

The state of the environment is precarious. Climate change poses the ultimate threat to life as
we know it. It goes without saying that the effort of communities and nations ought to be
directed towards doing everything that is necessary to limit global warming and safeguard
ecological health. But this does not lessen the role of individuals. Eventually individuals will
have to find and adopt behaviours that are less selfish and more attuned to the greater good of
the planet.

3.9 KEY WORDS

Anthropocentrism: Anthropocentrism is human centeredness and implies that only humans

have moral value or that humans matter the most.

61
Biocentric ethics: This ethics extends moral status to all entities that are living and in doing
so questions the narrow range of anthropocentric ethics.

Climate change: Sustained change in climate and weather patterns over a period of time is
referred to as climate change.

Ecocentric ethics: This is a holistic ethics that values the whole of nature (including
ecosystems) rather than individuals.

Intrinsic value: When an object or entity is valued for itself and not for its usefulness, then it
is said to have intrinsic value

Sentience: The dictionary meaning of sentience is the capacity for sensation and feeling. In
environmental ethics sentient beings have come to signify (particularly through the work of
Peter Singer) those that can feel pleasure and pain or are able to enjoy and suffer.

3.10 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

• Elliot, Robert (1993). “Environmental Ethics.” In A Companion to Ethics, edited by

Peter Singer, 284-293. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• Gardiner, Stephen M., Simon Caney, Dale Jamieson and Henry Shue (eds.) (2010).
Climate Change: Essential Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jamieson, Dale (2008). Ethics and the Environment: An Introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
• O’Neill, John (2003). “Varieties of Intrinsic Value.” In Environmental Ethics: An
Anthology, edited by A. Light & H. Rolston III, 131-142. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing. pp. 131-142.
• Regan, Tom (1985). “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Defence of Animals, edited by
Peter Singer, 13-26. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

• Schmidtz, David and Elizabeth Willott (eds.), (2002). What Really Matters, What
Really Works. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Singer, Peter (2002, reprint). “All Animals Are Equal.” In Environmental Ethics:
What Really Matters, What Really Works, edited by D. Schmidtz and E. Willott, 12-
27. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

62
Websites
Environmental Ethics: https://www.iep.utm.edu/envi-eth/
Climate change and IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/

3.11 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check your Progress I
1. Environmental ethics may be defined as a form of applied ethics that determines the
rightness and wrongness of actions directed towards the natural world. It finds out whether
criterion can be found to question actions such as the cutting of trees and hunting of animals.
Thus, as a discipline environmental ethics seeks to find principles and norms that would
guide us in answering moral questions that are raised when human beings interact with
nature.

Check your Progress II

1. An animal-centred ethics extends moral concern to human beings and animals. Animal-
centrists believe that animals should be included either because they are sentient (have the
capacity to feel pain or pleasure) or because they have rights (given that they experience life).
Animal-centred views vary from radical to more moderate versions where equal interests may
be treated equally. Lower life forms without sentience such as plants are therefore not
included in this reckoning. Biocentric ethics, on the other hand, extends moral concern to all
life forms including plants. Plants are included as they struggle for survival and they can be
benefited or harmed whilst pursuing their good. A strong biocentrism can argue for the equal
consideration of all living beings (egalitarianism) but a weaker one may consider interests
differentially.

Check your Progress III

1. Climate change is a historical fact and refers to the sustained changes in climate and
weather conditions over time. However, of late it has become an issue of great anxiety as
slow alterations have been replaced by unprecedented, rapid changes. The cause is considered
to be an increase in green-house gases such as carbon dioxide and methane that regulate the
earth’s temperature. And the cause of these increased gases in turn is anthropogenic i.e., due
to human activities. The industrial revolution boosted production manifold. It also laid the
ground for a fossil-fuel based economy which went hand in hand with carbon emissions.
Carbon emissions from industrial activity have increased exponentially as the years have
gone by. Other human activities and life style choices have also added fuel to fire – what we
63
eat, how we travel and what we buy are all largely to blame for worsening the global
warming threat.

64