Ecologism
215
the ecological consequences of economic growth, based on the assumptions that growth is no longer desirable (as demonstrated by the fact that pre-industrial societies often flourished without it) and, being rooted in the drive for a surplus, growth is always linked exploitation (Kallis, 2017). Environmental ethics Ecologism, in all its forms, is concerned with extending moral thinking in a number of novel directions. This is because conventional ethical systems are clearly anthropocentric, orientated around the pleasure, needs and interests of human beings. In such philosophies, the non-human world is invested with value only to the extent that it satisfies human ends. An example of the novelty of environmental ethics can be found in the debate, raised by the ‘Fridays for Future’ school strikes, over whether young people’s views on climate change should receive special consideration (see p. 216). An alternative approach to environmental ethics involves applying moral standards and values developed in relation to human beings to other species and organisms. This can be seen in the growth of ethical veganism , which goes far beyond the adoption of a plant-based diet. However, the most familiar attempt to extendmoral standards to other species comes in the formof ‘ animal rights ’. In an argument that has had considerable impact on the animal liberation movement, Peter Singer (1976) claimed that an altruistic concern for the well-being of other species derives from the fact that, as sentient beings, they are capable of suffering. Drawing on utilitarianism (see p. 33), he pointed out that animals, like humans, have an interest in avoiding physical pain, and he therefore condemned any attempt to place the interests of humans above those of animals as ‘ speciesism ’. Nevertheless, the moral stance of deep ecology goes much further, in particular by suggesting that nature has value in its own right; that is, intrinsic value. From this
perspective, environmental ethics have nothing to do with human instrumentality and cannot be articulated simply through the extension of human values to the non-human world. Robert Goodin (1992), for instance, attempted to develop a ‘green theory of value’, which holds that resources should be valued precisely because they result from natural processes rather than human activity. However, since this value stems from the fact that the natural landscape helps people to see ‘some sense and pattern in their lives’ and to appreciate ‘something larger’ than themselves, it embodies a residual humanism that fails to satisfy some deep ecologists. From having to being Ecologism seeks not only to revise conventional moral thinking, but also to reshape our understanding of happiness and human well-being. In particular, green thinkers have advanced a critique of materialism and consumerism. Consumerism is a psycho-cultural phenomenon whereby personal happiness is equated with the consumption of material possessions, giving rise to what the German psychoanalyst and social philosopher Erich Fromm (1979) called a ‘having’ attitude of mind. For green theorists, ‘having’ – the disposition to seek fulfilment in acquisition and control – is deficient in at least two respects. First, it tends to undermine, rather than enhance, psychological and
Ethical veganism: The philosophical belief that cruelty and suffering to animals be avoided at all practical costs. Animal rights: Moral entitlements that are based on the belief that as animals are non-human ‘persons’, they deserve the same consideration (at least in certain areas) as human beings. Speciesism: A belief in the superiority of one species over other species, through the denial of their moral significance. Materialism: An emphasis on material needs and their satisfaction, usually implying a link between pleasure or happiness and the level of material consumption.
Powered by FlippingBook