DEEP ECOLOGY

Central positions and an argument:

1. All living beings have intrinsic worth. (Intrinsic value is grounded in life as opposed to only human beings.)

2. All life is interconnected.

3. Human civilization is destroying more value than it is realizing.

Therefore (from premises 1 and 3), there ought to be a radical change—even (from premise 2) only out a consideration of self-interest. (Note the shift from the moral to the prudential “ought.”)

For instance:

(a) self-conscious depopulation

(b) massive restoration of wilderness

(c) “change of consciousness” (Rosemary Radford Ruether), sacralization of life processes (elimination of waste, reduction of consumption, etc.) or respect for animals in the manner of the American Indians (Callicut and Overholt)

Objection: What is the criterion for having intrinsic worth?

Answer: Being alive.

Objection: A mosquito is alive, but surely a mosquito is not as valuable as a human being, or a cat or an elephant, for that matter!

Answer (given by some): “Degree of organic unity” is a secondary criterion that establishes a hierarchy among life forms for us without undercutting our sense of the intrinsic value of every life form.

Another objection: Many life forms harm other life forms in order to live.

Answer: (1) Hitler’s armies count as evil for a related reason even though they were composed of human beings who were both intrinsically valuable and at the high end of the organic-unity scale. (2) Harm-to-survive is okay so long as a rich diversity and harmony are maintained, so long, for example, as one species does not expand its “niche” to consume the entire biosphere.

Objection: Only human beings are aware of a moral “ought,” so only they have dignity. Only human beings have intrinsic worth.

Answer: Why should such awareness be the only foundation of value? There could not be this or any awareness if there were no life. Life itself is the fundamental value.

Objection: Human civilization is rife with social injustice. There is an enormous gap between the wealthy and half a billion or so who live in squalor and “absolute poverty.”

Deep ecology--indeed, the entire environmental movement--is an indulgence, a whim of the rich. It does nothing for the poor except to displace them and increase their suffering.

Answer (by the radicals): If the deep-ecology standpoint is not embraced, everyone is doomed.

Another answer (by the “champions of local power and commons regimes,” the editors of the Ecologist, for instance, as well as Ramchandra Guha, pp. 82-83, the last two pages of his article in your packet of photocopies):

The right attitudes are:

Embracing an ecologically healthy lifestyle (reducing waste and consumption) and

Opposing militarism (e.g., participating in peace movements)

These are not opposed to movements for social justice but foster them by helping to remove obstruction, for instance, the militarism blocking democracy (and respect for human rights), and reducing the demand for Third World commodities currently consumed in massive amounts by the developed world.

Deep ecologists are also prone to put forth in favor of their policies the following arguments connected to their position, “All life is interconnected” (#2 above):

From an anthropocentric perspective, the richness and diversity of life forms are instrumentally valuable. Humanity depends on having a healthy environment in order to thrive. (Review: which ethical theorist studied by us puts forth an instrumentalist theory?)

Furthermore, people and other species share many common interests, such as clean air.

But a crisis of ecological balance is shown by (i) Malthusian population growth, (ii) rapid extinction of species, (iii) ozone depletion, (iv) global warming, and so on (the “end of nature”).

Therefore, there should be preservation of wilderness and so on (the “Green agenda”).

Note the phenomenon of “argument convergence” (a single conclusion arrived at by different lines of reasoning).

Ecofeminism (Ruether):

“Owning the earth” is part of a patriarchal attitude responsible for the subjugation of women, slavery as an institution, and colonialism.

Listening to the voice of Gaia (the Earth Mother) is a religious or spiritual symbol for both:

(a) ending patriarchy and all forms of oppression (ending social injustice) and

(b) living in an ecologically responsible manner.