Environmental ethics

It is the part of environmental philosophy which considers extending the

traditional boundaries of ethics from solely including humans to including the
non-human world. It exerts influence on a large range of disciplines including law,
sociology, theology, economics, ecology and geography.

There are many ethical decisions that human beings make with respect to the
environment. For example:

• Should we continue to clear cut forests for the sake of human consumption?
• Should we continue to propagate?
• Should we continue to make gasoline powered vehicles?
• What environmental obligations do we need to keep for future generations?
• Is it right for humans to knowingly cause the extinction of a species for the
convenience of humanity?

Marshall's categories of environmental

ethics
There have been a number of scholars who've tried to categorise the various ways
the natural environment is valued. Alan Marshall and Michael Smith are two
recent examples of this, as cited by Peter Vardy in "The Puzzle of Ethics".[6] For
Marshall, three general ethical approaches have emerged over the last 40 years.
Marshall uses the following terms to describe them: Libertarian Extension, the
Ecologic Extension and Conservation Ethics.

Libertarian extension
Marshall’s Libertarian extension echoes a civil liberty approach (i.e. a
commitment to extend equal rights to all members of a community). In
environmentalism, though, the community is generally thought to consist of non-
humans as well as humans.

Andrew Brennan was an advocate of ecologic humanism (eco-humanism), the

argument that all ontological entities, animate and in-animate, can be given ethical
worth purely on the basis that they exist. The work of Arne Næss and his
collaborator Sessions also falls under the libertarian extension, although they
preferred the term "deep ecology". Deep ecology is the argument for the intrinsic
value or inherent worth of the environment – the view that it is valuable in itself.
Their argument, incidentally, falls under both the libertarian extension and the
ecologic extension.
Peter Singer's work can be categorized under Marshall's 'libertarian extension'. He
reasoned that the "expanding circle of moral worth" should be redrawn to include
the rights of non-human animals, and to not do so would be guilty of speciesism.
Singer found it difficult to accept the argument from intrinsic worth of a-biotic or
"non-sentient" (non-conscious) entities, and concluded in his first edition of
"Practical Ethics" that they should not be included in the expanding circle of moral
worth. This approach is essentially then, bio-centric. However, in a later edition of
"Practical Ethics" after the work of Naess and Sessions, Singer admits that,
although unconvinced by deep ecology, the argument from intrinsic value of non-
sentient entities is plausible, but at best problematic. We shall see later that Singer
actually advocated a humanist ethic.

Ecologic extension
Alan Marshall's category of ecologic extension places emphasis not on human
rights but on the recognition of the fundamental interdependence of all biological
(and some abiological) entities and their essential diversity. Where as Libertarian
Extension can be thought of as flowing from a political reflection of the natural
world, Ecologic Extension is best thought of as a scientific reflection of the natural
world. Ecological Extension is roughly the same classification of Smith’s eco-
holism, and it argues for the intrinsic value inherent in collective ecological
entities like ecosystems or the global environment as a whole entity. Holmes
Rolston, among others, has taken this approach.

This category includes James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis; the theory that the
planet earth alters its geo-physiological structure over time in order to ensure the
continuation of an equilibrium of evolving organic and inorganic matter. The
planet is characterized as a unified, holistic entity with ethical worth of which the
human race is of no particular significance in the long run.

Conservation ethics
Marshall's category of 'conservation ethics' is an extension of use-value into the non-
human biological world. It focuses only on the worth of the environment in terms of its
utility or usefulness to humans. It contrasts the intrinsic value ideas of 'deep ecology',
hence is often referred to as 'shallow ecology', and generally argues for the preservation
of the environment on the basis that it has extrinsic value – instrumental to the welfare of
human beings. Conservation is therefore a means to an end and purely concerned with
mankind and intergenerational considerations. It could be argued that it is this ethic that
formed the underlying arguments proposed by Governments at the Kyoto summit in
1997 and three agreements reached in Rio in 1992
Humanist theories
Following the bio-centric and eco-holist theory distinctions, Michael Smith further
classifies Humanist theories as those that require a set of criteria for moral status
and ethical worth, such as sentience This applies to the work of Peter Singer who
advocated a hierarchy of value similar to the one devised by Aristotle which relies
on the ability to reason. This was Singer's solution to the problem that arises when
attempting to determine the interests of a non-sentient entity such as a garden
weed.

Singer also advocated the preservation of "world heritage sites," unspoilt parts of
the world that acquire a "scarcity value" as they diminish over time. Their
preservation is a bequest for future generations as they have been inherited from
our ancestors and should be passed down to future generations so they can have
the opportunity to decide whether to enjoy unspoilt countryside or an entirely
urban landscape. A good example of a world heritage site would be the tropical
rainforest, a very specialist ecosystem or climatic climax vegetation that has taken
centuries to evolve. Clearing the rainforest for farmland often fails due to soil
conditions, and once disturbed, can take thousands of years to regenerate.

Anthropocentrism
Anthropocentrism simply places humans at the centre of the universe; the human
race must always be its own primary concern. It has become customary in the
Western tradition to consider only our species when considering the environmental
ethics of a situation. Therefore, everything else in existence should be evaluated in
terms of its utility for us, thus committing speciesism. All environmental studies
should include an assessment of the intrinsic value of non-human beings. In fact,
based on this very assumption, a philosophical article has explored recently the
possibility of humans' willing extinction as a gesture toward other beings. The
authors refer to the idea as a thought experiment that should not be understood as a
call for action.

What Anthropocentric theories do not allow for is the fact that a system of ethics
formulated from a human perspective may not be entirely accurate; humans are
not necessarily the centre of reality. The philosopher Baruch Spinoza argued that
we tend to assess things wrongly in terms of their usefulness to us.Spinoza
reasoned that if we were to look at things objectively we would discover that
everything in the universe has a unique value. Likewise, it is possible that a
human-centred or anthropocentric/androcentric ethic is not an accurate depiction
of reality, and there is a bigger picture that we may or may not be able to
understand from a human perspective.
Mumbai Oil Spill
The oil leak from the sinking cargo vessel MSC Chitra has been plugged
with the Indian Coast Guard saying Operation Chitra has been successful
and the ship has been stabilised. But nearly 800 tonnes of oil is already
believed to have leaked out into the Arabian Sea and has been seen floating
close to the coastline threatening marine life.

There are eight main fuel tanks on board the ship and two of these tanks
leaked tonnes of oil into the sea. Coast Guard helicopters have been spraying
anti-dispersants to prevent the oil spill from spreading. A team from Holland
has also been called in to help in containing the spill.

MSC Chitra was also carrying 1219 containers out of which 31 had
hazardous chemicals like pesticides. In the last three days approximately 400
containers have slipped into the sea.
The oil spill has already spread over an area of 25 square kilometers and the
hazardous chemicals and pesticides may affect about 200 species of marine
life. Mangroves off Navi Mumbai are in danger of being destroyed and the
debris caused by the collision of ships may pose navigational problems.

Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board is looking into the possible oil
poisoning and pollution along the coastline and the Directorate General of
Shipping will conduct an enquiry into the causes of the accident and the
Mumbai Port Trust will collate information on claims settlement.

The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) has been advised not to use
sea water to cool its reactors as it might contain oil and toxic substances.
The BMC has advised people against eating sea fish as a precaution.

Maharashtra Environment Minister Suresh Shetty claimed that steps were

being taken to deal with the oil leak and the threat that it posses.

"We are already taking precautions and have given orders to collect water
samples," said Shetty.

He said that MSC Chitra also carried pesticides in 31 containers but hoped
that they had not fallen into the sea.

"These 31 containers that were there which contained pesticides are at the
bottom of the vessel and they are hoping that there was no contact with those
containers and the water," he said.

"We have lodged an FIR against both the shipping companies. The captains
were called by the police for interrogation and we have checked their
insurance papers," he added.

Six Coast Guard ships have been employed to safely shift the containers that
fell off MSC Chitra after it collided with MV Khalijia-III outside the
Mumbai harbour, barely five km from the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust.
 Environmental
Ethics

Assignment

Sumitted by,
Prathamesh Patil
T.Y.B.M.S To,
131 Archana
Prabhudesai Mam