Thinking Ethically About the Environment

Keith Douglass Warner OFM, with David DeCosse

[https://charterforcompassion.org/compassion-environment-reader/the-story-of-solutions/thinking-
ethically-about-the-environment]

Ethics are a broad way of thinking about what constitutes a good life and how to live one. They
address questions of right and wrong, making good decisions, and the character or attributes
necessary to live a good life. Applied ethics address these issues with a special emphasis on how
they can be lived out in a practical manner. Environmental ethics apply ethical thinking to the
natural world and the relationship between humans and the earth. Environmental ethics are a key
feature of environmental studies, but they have application in many other fields as human society
grapples in a more meaningful way with pollution, resource degradation, the threat of extinction,
and global climate disruption.

This short course introduces the key features of environment ethics for an audience without a
background in ethics. It is written specifically to help students - from high school to adult learners -
to recognize and use moral language to describe how they value the earth. The learning goals are:

 to understand the essential features of moral or ethical thinking;

 to learn about the important and distinguishing characteristics in environmental ethics;
 to develop the skills to recognize and deploy moral discourse for leadership in
environmental fields.

Recognizing and using ethics relies heavily on language skills. This course will introduce the essential
vocabulary of environmental ethics, for example, the moral significance of nature, the ethical
dimension of sustainability, and environmental virtue ethics. Most people use ethics language every
day, but we often do so without fully realizing that what we care about is rooted in our moral vision.
When we instinctively exclaim that something is wrong, we do so on the basis of an ethical principle
in the back of our minds. For example, we are consuming resources, degrading our planet's ability to
provide the services we humans need, at a faster rate than they can naturally replenish; if you
believe this is wrong, you are basing this on some kind of moral principle. This course is designed to
help you make explicit your reasons for believing that the earth has ethical significance. Often the
simple shift from implicit to explicit use of ethics language can make statements much more
meaningful, much more persuasive.

Moral reasoning is not a substitute for science, but it provides a powerful complement to scientific
knowledge about the earth. Science does not teach us to care. Scientific knowledge does not, by
itself, provide reasons for environmental protection. Science and economics provide data,
information, knowledge. Environmental ethics turns to this information and asks: how then, should
we live? Why should we care? Environmental ethics builds on scientific understanding by bringing
human values, moral principles, and improved decision making into conversation with science.
Environmental ethics is necessarily inter-disciplinary, meaning it draws on other fields of academic
inquiry; it cannot stand by itself. Often, the simple question, "What is the right thing for us to do?"
can open up fresh perspectives on environmental problems. Thinking ethically about the
environment has the potential to help anyone contribute to creating environmental solutions.

In the most general sense, environmental ethics invites us to consider three key propositions:
o the Earth and its creatures have moral status, in other words, are worthy of our ethical
concern;

1
 o the Earth and its creatures have intrinsic value, meaning that they have moral value merely
because they exist, not only because they meet human needs;
o drawing from the idea of an ecosystem, human beings should consider "wholes" that include
other forms of life and the environment.

There are different trends, voices, and diverse opinions within the field of environmental ethics. This
short course will provide you the essential tools for being able to develop your own moral vision for
living in relationship to the Earth, and for inviting others to consider the Earth as morally significant.

Outline for Environmental Ethics lesson plans

1. An autobiography of your relationship with the Earth
2. Who, when, where and how: the distinctiveness of environmental ethics
3. What: using ethical principles in moral reasoning about the environment
4. The ethical dimension of sustainability
5. Environmental justice
6. Virtue ethics for environmental leadership
7. The role of science in environmental ethics
8. Precaution and the responsibility principle
9. Climate ethics
10. Religious environmental ethics
11. Eating and agricultural ethics
12. Environmental ethics decision making guide

General recommended reading in environmental ethics

Callicott, J.B., 1997. Earth's Insights: A Multicultural Survey of Ecological Ethics from the
Mediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback University of California Press, Berkeley.
DesJardins, J.R., 2006. Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy.
Wadsworth, Belmont, California.
Martin-Schramm, J.B. and Stivers, R.L., 2003. Christian Environmental Ethics: A Case Method
Approach. Orbis, Maryknoll, New York.

2
 Lesson One
An Autobiography of your Relationship with the Earth
By Keith Douglass Warner OFM, with David DeCosse

To start a journey into environmental ethics, begin with what you know. One of the best ways to
become aware of what you already know about environmental ethics is to write an autobiography of
your relationship with the earth. Ethics is a matter of connecting head and heart. But too often
ethical reasoning becomes detached from our experience, emotions, feelings, and deepest if
unacknowledged commitments. By telling the story of the history of your relationship with the
earth, you can better reflect on why we value the natural world as we do. And by reflecting on these
deeper commitments of the heart, you can better refine our ethical reasoning about the
environment.

Step One:
The great American environmentalist Aldo Leopold said in Sand County Almanac that "we can be
ethical only in relation to something that we can see, feel, understand, love, or otherwise have faith
in." In light of Leopold's comment, we invite you in the course of writing this autobiography to think
of the earth in imaginative, personified terms. Has your relationship with the earth been a
relationship with a friend or stranger? Or sometime friend and sometime stranger? Using Leopold's
terminology, ask yourself the following questions.
 How do you "see" the earth? Is it beautiful or ugly or somewhere in between?
 What do you "feel" about the natural world?
 Do you feel joy or sorrow, pain or pleasure about animals or sunsets or white-capped
waves?
 Do you "understand" the natural world and how its components are related? Or are its ways
foreign? Do you "love" the earth - or do you feel alien from it?
 Do you care for its well-being, feel for its suffering, want to heal its wounds? Or does
thinking about the earth in such terms seem inaccurate and far-fetched? And, to use the last
of Leopold's terms, do you have "faith" in the earth? Perhaps this is a religious faith? Or
perhaps this is faith in the sense that you count on the earth to provide well for your life? Or
perhaps the earth is faithless, a fickle friend at best?
The first step in writing the autobiography of your relationship with the earth is to jot down
responses to these questions.

Step Two:
The next step is an exercise in gathering additional information out of which to shape your
autobiography. In this step, you should jot down responses to the following questions:

 What is your most significant experience of nature? An experience undertaken in the course
of work or recreation or other? Are there one or two experiences of an encounter with the
natural world that stand out in memory? Close your eyes and remember the sights, smells,
and feelings of being in a place where you felt intimate with nature, and then write up notes
that explain why that place on that day allowed you to relate to the Earth in a special way.
 How has your relationship with the earth been affected by your family history? By the
experience of your parents, grandparents, and forebears? By how they came to own and to
use property? Did your family go on camping trips? Or did your family hunt? Did your family
teach you to care for the Earth and its creatures? Was your family vegetarian and, if so,
why? Has an environmental crisis ever affected you or your family?
 Has there been a book, movie, song, or course you have taken that has affected deeply how
you think about the earth? Has religion played a role - positive or negative - in how you
experience your relationship with the earth?

3
  What have been some of the most significant economic, social, cultural, or political
developments that have affected how you experience the earth?
Step Three:
With Steps One and Two complete, you now have the raw materials from which create the
autobiography of your relationship with the earth. Think over the notes that you have jotted down.
Reflect on what is most significant, on patterns, on what most moves you. Take special note of the
question of motive: Why, more than anything else, have you come to value the earth as you do?
There is no right answer to this question. You may value the earth a lot or not much at all. And how
you value the earth may well change in the future. But the goal now is simply to tell your own story,
whatever that is, of why you have come to value the earth as you do. With the question of motive
especially in mind, then, please write a 5-page autobiography of your relationship with the earth.

Step Four:
After finishing your autobiography, consider the following questions:
 What have you learned about how you have come to place a value on the natural world? Did
anything surprise you in your story?
 What, more than anything else, is the basis for the value you put on the natural world? And
what is the basis for how you view environmental issues?
 Are you satisfied with the story of your relationship with the natural world? Are there
aspects of your thinking that you would like to work on?
 Please read aloud to a friend or classmates a key passage from your autobiography.

4
 Lesson Two
Who, When, Where and How:
The Distinctiveness of Environmental Ethics
By Keith Douglass Warner OFM, with David DeCosse

This lesson introduces the distinctive features of environmental ethics by inviting you to see how
environmental ethics are related to personal or social ethics. Whether you consider yourself a very
ethical person or not, the fact is that you no doubt already think in many ethical ways. You think
about right and wrong, about what it means to be treated fairly, about having justice done. This
lesson plan aims to extend such common thinking about personal ethics to the field of
environmental ethics. We will do this by invoking the classic question words - "who," "when,"
"where," "how," and "what" - as bridges by which both to see the connection between personal and
environmental ethics and to see the distinctiveness of environmental ethics itself. At the end of each
step in this lesson, there is a question or questions to guide reflection and prompt discussion. We
invite you first to respond to these questions from what you already know. If you have more time,
we also invite you briefly to consider each question in light of related information that can be found
on some of the Web sites provided on the list at the end of this short course. You should take notes
as you proceed through the questions. There is no more extended writing assignment for this lesson
plan.

The "Who" of Environmental Ethics

We are used to thinking of ethics in personal or interpersonal terms. Ethics is the field of study that
pertains to how we ought to act - toward ourselves and others. But the field of environmental ethics
has invited us to think more broadly about who in fact are the subjects of ethics. Specifically,
environmental ethics invites us to consider:
That ethics is not only about the personal. Rather, it may be about how groups treat their members,
or and how nations treat each other.
That ethics pertains as well to how we act - not only toward ourselves and others - but also toward
the natural world itself.

In the past, the natural world was often the unseen participant in many situations of ethical
significance. Humans treated it as a passive backdrop, when in fact nature played an active role in
shaping human society. For instance, it was not uncommon that a blind eye could be turned to the
environmentally damaging effects on a community of manufacturing or waste disposal. Now,
however, community well-being is assessed not only in terms of such things as the quality of jobs or
the provision of health care. Rather, such well-being is also assessed in terms of the environmental
safety and health of the community. Or, for instance, it may have historically been the case that
excessive tree cutting in forests was permitted as a way to provide for economic livelihood. But it
may not have been the case that connections were made to the beauty and value of the trees in
themselves or to how trees in a forest affect many other living things.

All Stakeholders have some moral status

In any ethical decision, we must always ask who are all the stakeholders? Who are all of the persons
who have an interest in the outcome of the ethical decision? Environmental ethics has required us to
consider far more carefully the actual extent of the range of stakeholders in any ethical decision.
These may include, of course, the immediate people involved. But the stakeholders may also include
the people of future generations who may be affected by changes in the environment brought about
by decisions made today. The stakeholders may also include people who live far away who may be
affected via air and water by the environmental decisions made near at hand. And stakeholders may
include the natural world itself. This concept invites us to consider the "moral status" or the intrinsic

5
value of each stakeholder - whether the stakeholder is a human being or are the animals, plants, and
ecosystems of the natural world itself. The concept of "the moral status of nature" is a key feature
that distinguishes environmental ethics from social ethics.

The common good includes the goods of the earth

It is always helpful to think of a decision involving environmental ethics in terms both of the
concepts of the "common good" and of "social ethics." The common good is an ethical concept that
means that the good of each person is inseparable from the good of all persons. To the degree that
environmental issues almost always involve actions that may have an effect on a wide variety of
persons, such issues almost always require an assessment of our good in light of the common good.
Because of this requirement to address the common good of many persons, environmental ethics
are known as a branch of what is called "social ethics" (which we can distinguish from the less-
peopled notion of "personal ethics"). Moreover, it is also important when engaging in environmental
ethics to consider all of the different goods that figure in the common good. Of course, the goods of
many different men and women figure in the common good. But environmental ethics and the
concept of moral status invite us to look beyond only human goods. Rather, they invite us to
consider that the common good includes human and non-human goods: That the common good
includes not only those environmental conditions that enhance the fulfillment of men's and
women's lives but that the common good also includes the well-being of the natural world for its
own sake.
Question: Who are all of the stakeholders in the case of an endangered species threatened with
extinction?

The "When" of Environmental Ethics

When we discussed above the stakeholders in a decision about environmental ethics, we noted the
importance of considering the stakeholders of the future. To be sure, the future is a category
especially pertinent to environmental ethics. In many ethical decisions, the effects of our actions are
immediate and apparent. In many environmental ethics decisions, however, the effects of our
actions may be cumulative, long-lasting and, at least in the near term, hidden. The classic case of this
is nuclear waste, the devastating effects of which may be invisible. But the consideration of the
future in environmental ethics applies far more broadly than to the potency of nuclear waste. For
instance, the pollution from a new residential subdivision might flow into a nearby river. At first, the
damaging effects may be slight. But, over time, these effects may accumulate until the character of
the river is fundamentally and destructively altered.

Think to the Seventh Generation

In many environmental ethics decisions, we always need to ask: What is the role of the future
generations in this decision? How can we assess the cumulative effects over time on the
environment of whatever action is under consideration? How can we assess the cumulative effects
of a decision we are likely to make? The contemporary Seventh Generation environmental
movement is founded on this concern for the future. The movement draws its name from a
declaration of the Native American Iroquois Confederacy: "In our every deliberation we must
consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations."
Question: Do you think future human generations have moral status in the debate over climate
disruption?

The "Where" of Environmental Ethics

Environmental ethics invites us, then, to look far ahead in time. It also invites us to look far afield on
land and water and air. We tend to understand our ethical encounters as strictly interpersonal and
as occurring in the home or office. But environmental ethics invites us to consider a far broader field
as the scene of every ethical decision.

6
Natural World Not Taken For Granted
Asking the "where" question of environmental ethics invites us to consider the interconnectedness
of the natural world as a factor in all of our decisions. This requires us to leave the comfort of our
homes or offices or shopping malls to perceive and consider the effects of actions on a natural world
that we often take for granted or that we use without thinking too much about.
Environmental ethics invites us to consider places far from us. Whatever action we take may have
an effect near-at-hand: The plastic bottle we throw out the window remains sitting for months by
the side of the road. But our actions may also have effects that occur, literally, at a remove from
what we specifically do: The used engine oil we pour down the roadside drain runs through miles of
waterways and pipes all the way down to the faraway bay. The burning of coal in China results in
soot and ash falling on the Western U.S. The greenhouse gasses burned in Europe and North
America are chiefly responsible for raising average global temperatures, and the impacts of those
temperatures will be affecting virtually every person and ecosystem.

Emphasis on 'Wholes'
The third way that environmental ethics invites us to think differently in terms of place is in its
emphasis on "wholes." That is, environmental ethics invites us to consider decisions in light of such
living realities as the biosphere and ecosystems. Not only, then, can an action we take have an effect
emerge far from where the action took place. But also, our isolated action may well occur within an
existing biological system in which a small effect in one place may ripple out widely through an
interconnected and interdependent web of life. Thus, when we trace the possible effects of a
particular action, we must pay close attention to how the initial effects near at hand may well create
a chain reaction of critical effects.
Question: Do you know where your household's waste ends up, whether via sewage pipes or waste
disposal system?

Step Four: The "How" of Environmental Ethics

When we begin the process of thinking through a decision of environmental ethics, we should keep
in mind several key factors that inform how such reasoning is done. These factors are the difference
between the empirical and the ethical; the role of risk, uncertainty, probability, and prediction; and
the meaning of absolute, intrinsic, and instrumental value. Ethical reasoning on many topics may
involve such aspects. But in environmental ethics these factors have an unusually significant role.

The Difference Between the Empirical and the Ethical

The first factor is the difference between the empirical and the ethical. Often, these two kinds of
thinking are mistakenly thought to be the same thing. But the first kind of thinking - the empirical - is
about how in fact we do live. The second kind of thinking - the ethical - is about how we ought to
live. Thus, for instance, it is an empirical claim to say that the United States pollutes the world's
greatest source of climate disrupting greenhouse gasses as a result of fossil fuel burning. This claim is
a fact, which may or not may not be true. But it is not yet an ethical claim - that is, that the Federal
government should take action to address this. In environmental disputes, many people make claims
based on ideology, or a system of ideas that people believe to be true whether or not evidence
supports it. An ideology often reflects the position: "I have made my mind up so don't bother me
with the facts." In a free society, everyone is permitted to have their own opinion, but that does not
mean one is allowed to have their own facts. Lesson 7 describes in greater detail the role of science
in environmental ethics.
To make an ethical argument, establishing scientific data and determining scientific conclusions are
vital, but several more steps are necessary. In particular, we need to supply a step in the argument
that says clearly why such an action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution ought to be taken. For
instance, we would have to say: greenhouse gasses are disrupting our climate. Actions should be

7
taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because disrupting our climate will have terrible
environmental consequences for people and the Earth. People and the Earth have great moral
worth, and merit our protection. With these reasons in hand, we now can make the ethical claim
that actions should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. More on this in lesson 9 on
climate ethics.

Risk, Harm, and Prediction

Another key factor in reasoning about environmental ethics is the role played by risk, uncertainty,
probability, and prediction. Often cases of environmental ethics involve looking at the cumulative
harms of actions stretching far ahead into the future. But how accurate are such prediction of
impacts? The Earth's ecosystems behave in very complicated ways, and these defy human
understanding and accurate prediction. How probable is it that the predicted harmful or beneficial
effects on the environment of some action will in fact happen? As a quick test, it is usually the case
that the more probable it is that a damaging effect will occur, the more powerful is the ethical
responsibility for managing or mitigating the effects of that action. But it is always important in
assessing a case in environmental ethics to ask about the quality of the evidence used in assessing
risk and in making predictions. More on this in the lesson on the responsibility principle.
Question: How well can you tell the difference between an opinion, an ideology, and scientific
evidence? How would you go about distinguishing between an empirical and an ethical claim?

Absolute, Intrinsic, and Instrumental Value

A third key factor to keep in mind in thinking through a decision in environmental ethics is to note
the difference among absolute, intrinsic and instrumental value. Something that has absolute value
cannot in any way be harmed. Many people think, for instance, that innocent human life itself has
absolute value and, thus, that there can be no justification for harming innocent human life. Not as
many people today think that the natural world itself has a similar, absolute value. But many people
have increasingly said that the natural world has intrinsic value or, in other words, counts for its own
sake (we referred to this idea earlier when we spoke of "moral status").

In environmental ethics, there may be a number of reasons for why we attribute intrinsic value to
things. For instance, some people may grant intrinsic value to animals because these people believe
that animals are created by God. Other people may grant intrinsic value to animals because these
people think that animals have feelings of pain and pleasure that must be taken into account in our
assessment of actions taken that may possibly harm animals. When we grant such intrinsic value to
things, we do not regard them as readily as things that can be used. Rather, such things become
protected or preserved or enhanced. Even so, however, it is important to note that something can
have intrinsic but not absolute value: In other words, something can be precious but not so precious
that under no circumstances will we permit it to be harmed. For instance, many people who support
hunting may think along these lines. They value animals for their own sake but nevertheless justify
hunting for reasons like wildlife management.

Last, we should also keep in mind the role of instrumental value in environmental ethics. We are
reasoning by instrumental value when we say, for instance, that the natural world has value insofar
as it benefits human life. At one level, this claim is not controversial. Almost everyone would say -
when pressed - that we do value the natural world in great measure because of the way it shapes
human life. But the key concern here is the degree of instrumentality that we grant to the natural
world. For instance, it would be highly controversial in environmental ethics to use a notion of
instrumental value that says the natural world only has value insofar as it benefits human life.

Question: Do you think animals have absolute, intrinsic, or instrumental value? Does the distinction
between farm and wild animals make a difference in your opinion?

8
 Lesson Three
What: Using Ethical Principles in Moral Reasoning about the Environment

There are many different principles on which to draw in moral reasoning about specific
environmental problems. This lesson reviews three basic pairs of principles: justice and
sustainability; sufficiency and compassion; solidarity and participation. This lesson demonstrates
how environmental concerns challenge us to extend these principles to include the well-being of the
natural world and our human duties to it. It concludes with a description of three general types of
arguments that can be used in moral reasoning about the environment.

The three classic ethical principles of justice, sufficiency and solidarity can be traced back to many
different sources: Greek philosophy, religious teachings, and reflection on human experience. In the
face of any decision involving environmental ethics, we should ask how each of these ethical
principles - also known as ethical norms - can be applied to the situation at hand. Ethical principles
are standards or benchmarks against which we can evaluate our actions. They are also signposts to
orient us toward the difference between right and wrong, especially in conditions where there are
multiple problems, and the interests of more than one party. Ethical principles are different from
scientific principles in that they are generally not as hard and fast. They are less likely to give us one
correct answer, but can be used to evaluate conflicting claims, a decision making process, or the
outcome of a decision.

Justice and sustainability

The classic formal principle of justice is that equals should be treated equally unless there is a
sufficient reason to treat anyone (or anything) unequally. It is clearly relevant in the field of ethics
called environmental justice, but this principle cuts across many issues. Environmental justice is
concerned with the inequitable access to environmental resources (clean food, air and water) and
the injustice of greater pollution that often characterize lower-income communities - not wealthy
suburbs. The notion of justice underlies concern about animal welfare. On the basis of what values
are other animals considered different from the human animal, and thus subject to consumption by
humans? Recent advances in biology have shown that the differences between humans and other
animals are much less than many of us might think. Does the equality of humans and animals as
living creatures require far more humane treatment of animals? Or even the total non-use of
animals? To apply justice to an environmental decision, we should ask:
Are all human beings involved in this situation being treated equally and, if not, why not?
Are all living creatures involved in this situation being treated equally and, if not, why not?

Sustainability extends justice into the future. Sustainability can be defined as meeting the needs of
the present generation without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own
needs. We are consuming or degrading many resources (such as fossil fuel energy, topsoil and
water) today faster than they can be naturally replenished, which means they will not be available to
people in the future. The ethical principle of justice is at play because it underpins the need to
equitably balance the needs of those alive today (the rich and poor) with future generations. Thus,
environmental ethics takes the notion of fundamental fairness and stretches it to include those yet
to be born. To apply the principle of sustainability to an environmental decision, we should ask:
What are the immediate and long-term effects of the problem before us?
Who - humans and otherwise - is affected today by the problem before us and who will likely be
affected by this problem in the future?

Sufficiency and compassion

The principle of sufficiency mandates that all forms of life are entitled to enough goods to live on
and flourish. The principle also means no one should waste or hoard resources intended for the

9
sufficiency of all. Upholding the norm of sufficiency makes demands upon individuals - to share, to
live more simply, to think creatively - and on human communities: to ensure that everyone has
access to the goods that they need to live a life of dignity. The ethical norm of sufficiency is closely
tied to the notion of moral significance, which means that something is worthy of our ethical
concern. This means that we include the needs of others in our consideration of what is important,
or worthy of our concern. When we consider the needs of others, such as poor individuals in our
society or poor countries in the world, we are asserting the moral principle of sufficiency. This
principle helps us think about whom else we need to consider, to whom we have moral duties. It
underlies the practice of empathy. This principle can conflict, at least in some people's minds, with
the notion that the Earth does not have sufficient goods to meet everyone's needs. To apply the
principle of sufficiency to an environmental decision, we should ask:
Will the decision permit all those involved, especially the poor, to have enough resources on which
to live and flourish?
Is there any aspect of the decision that indicates the presence of waste or excess? Or a failure to be
creative?

Compassion extends the notion of sufficiency to the Earth. Environmental ethics asserts that other
animals, plants, and the elements (such as water, soil or air) are morally significant, and that humans
have responsibilities to act so that their needs are met too. Some environmental ethicists, such as
Deep Ecologists, assert that non-human forms of life have moral significance equivalent to humans.
Most people, however, believe that other forms of life have some moral worth, but that humans are
of greater moral significance. Even if you think animals are far more worthy of your concern than
plants or elements, recognize that all animals depend, either directly or indirectly on plants for food,
and that no creatures can live without sufficient clean water. To assert that any wild animal is
worthy of our moral concern begins the process of learning about the interdependence of all
creatures on the habitat and food resources provided by other creatures in an ecosystem. It is simply
impossible to consider the well-being of one other creature in isolation from their environment.
Ultimately, the future of humans is tied to the well-being of all other creatures. To apply the
principle of compassion to an environmental decision, we should ask:
What duties do we have to the other creatures likely to be affected by our actions?
What does sufficiency mean for other creatures, especially those threatened with extinction?
What would it mean to extend the principle of compassion to non-human creatures?

Solidarity and participation

The principle of solidarity invites us to consider how we relate to each other in community. It
assumes that we recognize that we are a part of at least one family - our biological family, our local
community, or our national community - but then challenges us to consider the full range of
relationships with others. In a globalizing economy, we participate in a vast, international economic
community, one in which goods and services are provided for us by those on the other side of the
world. Solidarity requires us to consider this kind of extended community, and to act in such a way
that reflects concern for the well-being of others. To apply the principle of solidarity to an
environmental decision, we should ask:
 Who are all the human stakeholders involved in this situation?
 Who are all the natural stakeholders?
 Is there a community of life (ecosystem) involved?
 Are there any stakeholders - human and non-human - who are especially vulnerable?

Participation extends the idea of solidarity to make it practical. The demands of solidarity point us to
the principle of participation, so that those affected by an environmental decision can shape how it
is made. Many, many environmental problems stem from decisions being made by private
individuals or companies that have wide-ranging implications. In some cases, in this country and

10
others, governments make environmental decisions without fully securing the consent of the public.
Often, those most affected are unaware of the decisions or the long-term effects on their health and
the well-being of their environment. The ethical principle of participation requires us to recognize all
of the parties - human and non-human - likely to be affected by a decision, and to recognize that all
parties should have a say in how the decision is made. Genuine participation requires transparency,
meaning that each individual has access to the same information that everyone else has. To apply
the principle of participation to an environmental decision, we should ask:
Do all stakeholders in this decision actually have a say in how the decision is going to be made?
Are there any stakeholders who cannot represent themselves? Or who have little power? How will
their interests be represented in the decision-making process?

Modes of Ethical Reasoning about the Environment

We now come to the "what" of environmental ethics, in other words, to the kinds of ethical
reasoning that uses standards for environmental behavior or decisions. If we reflect on how we
already think, we can see several common modes of ethical reasoning. For the sake of simplicity and
by using a sort of short-hand, let's consider these modes as three: moral reasoning about
commands, consequences, and character. Whenever we consider an ethical problem, we usually
find ourselves reasoning along one or more of these lines. And this is as much the case in
environmental ethics as in any other kind of ethics.
Commands. We can use the notion of "commands" as a shorthand way for referring to those things
that we ought to do, no matter what the consequences. This kind of reasoning is also associated with
such ethical categories as commandments, laws, rights, and justice. In terms of environmental
ethics, perhaps the classic command is one of the classic commands in all of ethics, "Do no harm."
That is, our first general duty toward the environment is to do no harm. Moreover, we are reasoning
in a command mode when, for instance, we think that animals have rights and, therefore, that
justice requires that we not harm them; this is often the ethical conviction behind those who do not
eat meat.

Consequences. The ethical notion of consequences is most often associated with the philosophical
school of utilitarianism. According to this mode of ethical reasoning, commands are not sufficient in
themselves to tell us what we ought to do. Instead, we need to think carefully about the
consequences of our actions. Thus we can determine the correct ethical action by choosing the one
that will produce the greatest balance of good consequences over bad consequences. This kind of
reasoning helpfully invites us to consider the totality of a situation and to identify its positive and
negative aspects. More to the point, in this kind of reasoning, commands or laws or rights can be
overridden if doing so will yield a greater balance of benefits over harms. This means, for instance,
that something like the rights of animals can be overridden for the sake of some perceived human
benefit. In consequential reasoning, it is often difficult to specify what qualifies as a "benefit" and a
"harm" or, similarly, a "benefit" and a "cost," or "good" and "bad," etc. Frequently in environmental
cases, costs and benefits are considered only in monetary terms. But while the assessment of such
financial costs is an essential part of many ethical analyses, it cannot be the whole of such analyses.
And it is important to try to name what else constitutes harm and benefits. One way of doing this
might be to say, for instance, that harm is constituted by things like premature death, undue pain, or
the violation of human economic or political rights. An environmental action that leads or very likely
will lead to such harms would be ethically problematic. Working to protect the full diversity of life on
Earth is an example of ethical action with a positive consequence.

Character. When we speak of "character," we are not doing so precisely in the way that we often
hear the word: As referring to a role in a play or movie. Rather, we are referring more to the notion
that "he or she has got good character" or to the notion that "he or she is a person of conscience." In
the face of a situation of environmental ethics, we are asking: What does this particular action that

11
may affect the environment mean for my character? Or, similarly, what kind of person am I
becoming by engaging in these actions in relation to the environment? Am I becoming more just,
more humble, more generous? This mode of ethical reasoning invites careful and honest self-
reflection. It can also be a kind of reasoning used very well by a group. The fact is, we become what
we do - whether what we do involves only other people or also involves the natural world. This is
explored further in the lesson on environmental virtue ethics.

The ethical principles and modes or reasoning presented in this lesson will be integrated into a
decision making model in lesson 12.

Question: Take one important environmental issue - for example, water pollution or endangered
species - and analyze it in light of each of the key terms in this chapter: justice and sustainability;
sufficiency and compassion; solidarity and participation. How do different terms of analysis yield
different moral perspectives on the issue?

12
 Lesson Four
The Ethical Dimension of Sustainability
By Keith Douglass Warner OFM, with David DeCosse

Sustainability ethics have grown out of environmental ethics. The World Commission on Economic
Development brought the idea of sustainability to the global stage in 1987. The United Nations
sponsored this study of the relationship between economic development and the environment,
published as "Our Common Future," also known as "The Brundtland Report." Prior to this, the
United Nations had struggled to find a way to address global environmental problems. The
industrialized countries had proposed international treaties and action, but the developing nations
had prioritized the need for economic development, with little interest in environmental regulation.
The commission provided the conceptual framework for coordinated action, proposing that all
nations have a stake in fostering economic development, but of a new kind: sustainable. It proposed
sustainability as an integral framework, in which economic development, social equity, and
environmental protection are seen as inseparably related goals.

The Brundtland Commission advanced public understanding of the link between economic growth of
the poorer nations and global environmental protection. The commission argued that poorer
countries must have the opportunity to develop economically - if they are denied this opportunity it
will be much harder to convince all countries to support practices that can be sustained over time -
but richer countries must foster policies to favor environmental conservation with economic
development. "Our Common Future" laid the foundation for the "Earth Summit" at Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, in 1992, which marked the real beginning of international environmental protection initiatives
and proposed a sustainable development agenda.

Then Brundtland Report provided a deceptively simple definition of sustainability: "meeting the
needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their needs." The official U.N. definition of sustainability has 3 dimensions, or 3 pillars, also known as
the "Three Es" of sustainability. These are environmental protection, economic development, and
social equity.

Sustainability has now become a concern of virtually every sector of human society. It enjoys more
popular support than environmental resource conservation because it focuses on human needs, but
also because it provides a positive vision for the future of the human family. From a motivational
perspective, few people are inspired by the notion of "being less bad" in their environmental impact.
In contrast, sustainability provides a framework and markers for making positive change.

The justice dimension of sustainability

The social equity pillar has the clearest ethical component, that of socio-economic fairness or social
justice. The lifestyles of the richest and poorest members of the human family pose the greatest
threat to the integrity of our Earth's life support systems, but for different reasons. The wealthiest
consume vastly more than their fair share of resources, more than the planet can provide for
everyone. The poorest 1/3rd of human society, those living on less than $2 per day, have no
alternative but to use resources in a short-sighted way, for example, cutting down trees for firewood
before they are able to grow to their full height. The wealthiest countries have the capacity to make
choices for a more sustainable lifestyle, while the poorest members of the human family generally
do not. Thus, sustainability is built upon the practice of solidarity with the poor; fostering economic
development for them will enhance sustainability. The social equity dimension suggests that
sustainable development is an inherent moral good, but its consequences are likely to be ethically
positive as well.

13
The sustainability framework extends ethical concern to future generations. Human society now
consumes natural resources faster than they can be replenished, and this is compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their needs. Current and future generations are inheriting a world that
is biologically impoverished, has fewer resources, and suffers from more pollution than ever before.
Sustainability challenges present day humans to consider the well-being of future generations, to
view their needs as worthy of our moral concern. Modern humans are not accustomed to
considering future generations, but the power of our markets and technologies threaten their
quality of life. We can express a moral concern for the future by restraining our consumption of non-
renewable resources today. Note that some resources, such as minerals, are essentially finite. Other
resources, such as wind and plants, because they draw their energy from the sun, can be managed
so as to provide a continuous source of goods.

It is important to recognize that sustainability, much like "efficiency," does not have an intrinsic
meaning. In a simplistic sense, sustainability merely means the capacity to keep doing something.
For example, some economic institutions use the term to communicate their ability to sustain their
business activities, but this reflects their self-interest. Some governments use the term only in regard
to national economic growth. This is why the social equity dimension of sustainability is so critical.
Some use the term "environmental sustainability," but this makes no sense without its two
companion pillars. An ethical approach to sustainability suggests that society has an obligation to
restrain wasteful uses of resources among the affluent, but it also has a special obligation to foster
economic development for the poorest of the poor, all while maintaining environmental resource
protection. When referring to sustainable development, one needs to define what is to be sustained,
for whom, and for how long. Sustainability is not an absolute condition, but always partial.
Sustainability, like justice, occurs along a continuum, and making progress along this is necessarily
incremental. Restraint is its price.

Questions:
1. What could you contribute to the transition to a more sustainable society?
2. What kind of ethical arguments could best persuade various sectors of society to assume an
obligation for the well-being of future generations?
3. Many people only perceive two of the pillars of sustainability: environmental protection and
economic development. Why do you think it is more difficult for people to recognize the role of
justice / social equity?
For more reading:
Edwards, A., 2005. The Sustainability Revolution: Portrait of a Paradigm Shift. New Society
Publishers, Philadelphia.
Speth, J.G., 2004. Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment. Yale
University Press, New Haven.
Uhl, C., 2004. Developing Ecological Consciousness. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.
Keith Warner, OFM, is the Assistant Director for Education, Center for Science, Technology, and
Society at Santa Clara University and
David DeCosse is the Director of Campus Ethics Programs at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

14
 Lesson Five
Environmental Justice
By Keith Douglass Warner OFM, with David DeCosse

Environmental justice is the social justice expression of environmental ethics. The environmental
justice movement emerged to challenge the unfair distribution of toxic, hazardous and dangerous
waste facilities, which were disproportionately located in low income communities of color. This
movement is a distinct expression of environmentalism, for it works to improve the protection of
human communities and is generally less attentive to wild nature. It is environmental protection
where people live, work and play. Over the two past decades it has expanded its scope from
community-oriented anti-toxics activism to address global scale inequalities in economic
development and environmental degradation.

The idea of environmental justice draws heavily from civil rights, public health, and community
organizing efforts, and the environmental justice movement reflects this. As a result, this movement
devotes itself to the unfair distribution of environmental risks and resources, and promotes efforts
to prevent pollution from impacting low income communities. It complements traditional
environmentalism's efforts to protect nature by making the poor and marginalized the object of
special concern. Its power lies in its appeal to a fundamental ethic of fairness. Members of this
movement argue that it is unjust for politically marginalized, low income communities of color to
suffer such a heavy burden of polluting activities. More recently this framework has been adapted to
evaluate the extraction and distribution of resources (clean air, food and water).

Origins of the idea and movement

The first steps toward environmental justice were taken by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King in 1968, the
very week he was assassinated. He had come to Memphis to assist Black sanitation workers striking
for equity in pay and working conditions. During subsequent years, advocates in poor communities
(both urban and rural) began noticing patterns. In partnership with academic researchers, these
groups demonstrated how negative environmental impacts disproportionately impact low income
people and communities of color.

The term "environmental justice" was first articulated by a report of the United Church of Christ's
Commission for Racial Justice, Toxic Wastes and Race. The environmental justice movement built
upon the work of previous U.S. social movements for justice (civil rights, labor rights, and community
organizing efforts). African American churches who had been active in civil rights advocacy were
early and important religious contributors to this "new" environmentalism. An alternative vision of
environmental protection emerged from the collaboration between community groups and scholars.
Together they described the common patterns of environmental harm suffered by inner city African
Americans, Native Americans on reservations, and rural Mexican Americans (especially farm workers
and their rural communities). These groups viewed the problems of hazardous industries and
industrial waste as yet another manifestation of discrimination and racism. The severe public health
problems impacted neighborhoods already suffering from economic marginalization, crime, and
poor schools. Thus, environmental problems are seen as one dimension of many forms of racial
injustice visited upon some low income communities of color. The environmental justice movement
arose to criticize what they perceived to be unjust public policies, but also to critique conventional
environmental organizations, which then employed few persons of color and reflected middle and
upper class concerns. The leaders asserted the need for an alternative approach to environmental
leadership, and they took the problem of toxic racism or environmental injustice and reframed it
positively: environmental justice.

15
Environmental justice concerns are always embedded in a broader vision for justice in society. They
are not distinct from efforts to enhance economic justice and political power for marginalized
communities. Environmental justice carries a critique (whether explicit or implicit) of any
environmentalism that is disconnected from the needs of poor and vulnerable people. A chief
distinguishing feature of environmental justice is that it never considers environmental issues
separate from social justice efforts.

Community groups and citizen science

The movement for environmental justice has been strongest when community-based organizations
have partnered with university researchers. Local groups have more complete knowledge of
neighborhood environmental issues, but academics have contributed by bringing their scientific,
analytical, and legal expertise to bear on local problems. In collaboration these different kinds of
groups bring their own information and can advance more powerful arguments about discriminatory
environmental actions and the need for a more equitable approach. Many times these groups
encounter scientific claims by private industry and supportive public officials.

Community-based environmental justice efforts have recruited public health scientists, toxicologists
and statisticians to assist with the gathering of data in support of their claims of harm. Public health
is the study and practice of protecting and managing the health of human communities. It pays
special attention to the social context and consequences of illness, and proposes means of
preventing community health problems. Public health studies and experts have played key roles in
the environmental justice movement. Government agencies generally do not gather sufficient data
to ensure that public health is being protected, so many environmental justice groups gather their
own data and write their own reports, which can often contradict official government assurances of
safety. Citizen science is the practice of scientific research by non-experts on behalf of communities,
and it has contributed a great deal to this movement.

Drawing from the civil rights movement, the environmental justice movement has articulated
environmental human rights, or the right to a clean environment. This ethical position asserts that
everyone has the right to clean air, water, food and housing. This movement asserts that these are
not privileges but rather rights for everyone, and that public officials have a special responsibility to
protect these rights, especially in the lives of the poor and vulnerable. Community groups and the
environmental justice movement take action when public officials fail to act justly. Environmental
justice groups have argued that the solution to environmental injustices must involve more
democratic forms of governance that increase citizen participation in land and resource use
decisions.
Ethical reasoning in the environmental justice movement

Many of the civil rights churches contributed their resources to this movement, understanding
environmental justice as one expression of their social engagement. Recently theologians have
developed the term eco-justice to reflect a universal religious aspiration for right relationship
between humans and the earth, with special concern expressed specifically for vulnerable people
and the earth's creatures at risk of greed and destructive human activities. When faith communities
use the terms environmental justice or eco-justice, they often draw from the Biblical perspective on
social justice. This is a broader approach than merely legal rights or economic human rights. The
Hebrew Scriptures envision justice as right relationship between all created things, human, animal or
element. From a theological perspective, justice is a quality of relationship, not only an outcome of a
legislative or legal process.

The environmental justice movement argues that public participation in land use and environmental
resource decisions is necessary to fulfill the democratic ideals of our country. This reflects the strong

16
grassroots orientation of many environmental justice groups. Leaders argue that improved public
deliberative processes are necessary to make environmentally just environmental decisions.
Ultimately, the solution to any environmentally hazardous activity lies not only in an equitable
distribution of harms, but also in redesigning industrial production processes so that pollution is
prevented, not merely the escape of pollutants, but the very concept of industrial waste.

Environmental justice is a profoundly anthropocentric ethic, meaning that human beings are the
central moral concern. Endangered species and the health of ecosystems are not dismissed as
inconsequential, but human welfare and social equity are presented as central concerns. Thus,
concern for environmental justice has the potential to appeal to a broader human audience, those
interested in human well-being. Many environmental justice groups argue that every individual and
community has a right to clean air and water; this movement proposes a clean environment as a
human right. More recently, groups working for sustainable development have argued that human
beings have a right to sustainable development. As the world grows increasingly concerned with
global climate disruption, some groups are advancing ethical arguments for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions based on the principles of environmental justice.

Questions:
1. How does the ethical orientation of the environmental justice movement help make it distinct
from conventional environmentalism?
2. Do you think that having a clean environment is a human right?
3. Do you believe that increasing public participation in environmental decisions leads to more
environmentally just outcomes?

For more reading:

Cole, Luke W. and Sheila R. Foster. 2001. From the Ground Up; Environmental Racism and the Rise
of the Environmental Justice Movement. New York: New York University Press.

17
 Lesson Six
Environmental Virtue Ethics
By Keith Douglass Warner OFM, with David DeCosse

Virtue ethics can be particularly helpful for any kind of leadership because they nurture the
formation of character, the lasting habits of the heart and mind necessary to effect positive change
in the world. Developing personal and community virtues can provide a framework for sustained
engagement with the ethical life. Given the seriousness of our environmental crises and the
challenges these pose to human societies, the need for environmental virtue is all the more crucial.
Many people today want to live a good life in relationship to nature and the environment, and virtue
ethics help us to understand what that means. Environmental leaders need strength of character,
grounded in virtue, to sustain them over a lifetime of service in urging others to care for the Earth as
well. This lesson introduces virtue ethics, describes the classic virtues in light of the environmental
crisis, and describes how to cultivate "new" environmental virtues.

Introducing virtue
The term "virtue" can be traced back to the Greek philosophers. During the Middle Ages, St. Thomas
Aquinas developed this branch of ethics within his broad theological vision. A century ago, "virtue"
was commonly conceived rather narrowly to mean sexual morality. Virtue ethics are presently a field
of increased scholarly and popular interest. By proposing virtue ethics, we can invite audiences to
think about ethics less as a matter of conforming to external principles. Concern for ethical matters
outside of ourselves is important, but we can be more persuasive if we can blend this with
considerations of personal and community character. Virtue ethics addresses the deeper sense of
the human person. Virtue ethics focuses less on what is "out there," and more on what kind of
person one must become in order to live the good life. Fundamentally, virtue describes the
formation of character, the development of lasting habits, that can help a person live a good life.
A "habit" is a useful word for describing the practice of virtue. A virtue is a good habit, whether of
mind or heart. It is a power, an internal characteristic to act well. It is combining a sense of the will
and the mind. It is a fusion of these things, to act on behalf of value. The person of virtue is a person
of character, expressing their values through the decisions they make in their daily life. Our
planetary environment is in crisis in part because human beings often treat it as an afterthought.
Environmental virtue ethicists would say, we want to be environmentally concerned all the time, in
how we collectively treat the Earth. So a virtuous person is not someone who would occasionally do
the right thing, but rather consistently, out of a matter of habit.
Four cardinal virtues in an environmental context
Thomas Aquinas proposed four primary Christian virtues: justice, prudence, temperance, and
fortitude. Regardless of one's own faith commitment, these can be a sound basis for engaging in
environmental leadership. What follows is a presentation of these "classic" virtues, interpreting their
meaning in light of our contemporary environmental crises.
Justice for Aquinas means giving to each person, and each its creature, its due, in other words, what
it needs to life a full life. Aquinas understood the moral and theological significance of the created
world to invite humans to consider our duties to it. What are our ethical obligations to the natural
world? How do we make decisions about resources that accord each his, her, or its due? This is an
appropriate virtue to develop as we consider the global extinction of endangered species as well as
the hundreds of millions of people who lack the environmental resource necessary to live a life of
dignity. We need the virtue of justice today to help move away from mere charity, from merely
feeling sad for those who are suffering. The virtue of justice requires a response from us, requires us
to act justly, to take action to foster just relationships between people and the Earth. How do we
reform social institutions so that they do not force people into situations where their dignity is
compromised? How can we foster the kind of character that cares about fairness and equity in the
world?

18
Prudence is the intellectual habit that wisely assesses the means necessary to accomplish the end at
which you are aiming. Another more common word for this might be wisdom. Prudence and
environmental ethics invites us to consider these means, to have the capacity to make wise
judgments in complex trade offs. This is a critical habit to develop for those seeking a more
sustainable world. Sustainability means meeting the needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. It always requires a balance
between competing needs, and thus making wise choices. Another word for prudence is far-
sightedness. This would suggest that we take precautionary action now, and assume the
responsibility for environmental protection over time, rather than push problems off on future
generations. The responsibility principle is a contemporary expression of prudence.
Temperance can best be understood as restraint or self control. This virtue exists in tension with our
American culture's appetite and materialistic values. The United States has the world's highest per
person level of consumption, and people around the globe have destroyed forests, fisheries, and
ecosystems to support our way of life. Many industrial processes to create consumer goods generate
or dump large quantities of toxic chemicals, and these have a much greater chance of harming
disadvantaged communities than wealthy ones. As old fashioned as "temperance" sounds, this
virtue is a highly relevant ethic that can be used to moderate consumption. One relatively simple
way to express solidarity with those suffering environmental injustice can be to reduce one's
consumption, especially of materials that require the use of toxic chemicals for their production.
Temperance is an antidote to greed. Voluntary simplicity is an expression of the virtue of
temperance.
Fortitude, or bravery, is more commonly described as courage. The vocation of working for any
positive environmental change challenges us to cultivate an attitude of hope. The information
scientists report about the state of the world can be truly frightening, and has caused many people
to shut this news out. Humans can readily become paralyzed by fear. We can feel that we are
powerless to make a positive change. Virtue ethics challenge us to move beyond our negative
feelings and focus on what kind of person we want to be, what kind of character will help us live out
our commitments. This kind of hope, rooted in our habit of mind and heart, is precisely what we
need to bring to situations where environmental injustices are being perpetrated. Courage can give
us the perseverance to struggle for justice in the face of discouragement.
Developing "new" environmental virtues
Some ethicists are proposing that the environmental crisis is so serious that we have to create a
fresh approach to human virtue. They argue that re-imagining the classic cardinal virtues in an
environmental context is good, but not good enough to meet the challenge today. The relationship
between modern human society and nature is so out of balance that a new set of attitudes, a fresh
approach to virtue must be proposed. In fact, much of the environmental literature of the past few
decades is based on virtue. Some examples include: cultivating a new attitude toward the
environment, living within ecological limits, or developing an authentic respect for nature.
Some of the emerging environmental virtues include care, respect, compassion, and love.
Contemporary environment virtue ethics marks a shift away from individuals performing heroic acts,
and instead proposes a relational consciousness of a broader conception of the common good.
Environmental virtue ethics appeals to the development of environmentally conscious character, but
in community.
How do we acquire these virtues? In the tradition of virtue ethics, taking good actions will allow one
to develop good practices. We can make ourselves want to do the right thing more if we begin to
practice the right way of behaving. As that happens, we develop a habit of a greater desire for the
good. Virtue ethics proposes that people can develop character by putting virtues into action. We
can acquire virtue by our actions, and a virtuous person will act in a virtuous manner.
Virtue ethics is inclined toward action. Virtue ethics suggests that ideas alone do not suffice for
ethics. The person who has virtue feels a responsibility to act, and feels that one's character is
strengthened by expressing, however tentatively, virtue in action. The ethical life to be consistent

19
requires action, requires engagement; it demands commitment, and virtues can guide us on this
journey.
How do we encourage other people to develop in virtue? Especially those who do not agree with our
environmental values? It is not enough to simply throw ideas or values at other people. Virtues can
provide the basis for engaging those who think differently, who do not perceive issues of
environmental degradation in the same way.
A narrative, or a story we tell about the world and our role in it, plays a strong role in virtue ethics.
We all tend to think of our practices in terms of narratives, as explaining how we live out virtues in
our lives. Then virtue ethics makes the additional step: in our stories we assume notions of
character, what kinds of virtues that they are going to achieve success in the stories in our lives.
One fruitful strategy for fostering environmental virtue ethics can be found in sharing our stories of
the earth, such as the exercise in Lesson One. Environmental leaders, such as John Muir, Aldo
Leopold or Rachel Carson, have inspired many by relating how they lived in relationship to the earth.
Virtue ethics readily emerge when we share stories about what we care about most.
Questions:
1. Who stands out for you as living an exemplary environmentally virtuous life? In other words, who
is your environmental hero?
2. Which environmental virtue appeals to you most at this time? What are you doing to cultivate it?
For more reading:
Ronald Sandler and Philip Cafaro, Environmental Virtue Ethics, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
2005.
Keith Warner, OFM, is the Assistant Director for Education, Center for Science, Technology, and
Society at Santa Clara University and
David DeCosse is the Director of Campus Ethics Programs at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

20
 Lesson Seven
The Role of Science in Environmental Ethics
By Keith Douglass Warner OFM, with David DeCosse

Science is a powerful way of knowing that has transformed the relationship between human society
and the natural world. Drawn from the Latin word for knowledge, in the broadest sense, science
means a systematic way of gathering information and drawing conclusions. In a more restricted
sense, science refers to information gathered using the scientific method, a systematic approach to
gathering empirical (observable and measurable) data and determining facts about nature or
society. A scientific approach to studying the natural or social world asks clear, specific questions,
makes predictions (proposes hypotheses), tests the accuracy of those predictions, and draws
conclusions based on measurable evidence. The natural sciences use the scientific method to
investigate the natural world, and social scientists use it to research social issues, in other words, in
human society. When conducting experiments with natural phenomena, scientists using this method
can determine cause and effect relationships. The scientific method attempts to determine
knowledge by eliminating, so far as possible, the potential for our own interests and desires to
influence the results. This has increased the sophistication of our understanding of how the plants,
animals, nutrients and energy are related in the environment.
Astonishing benefits, but not without problems
Science, technology and engineering have brought terrific benefits to society, and have made
astounding wealth and material comfort possible. Yet upon closer analysis, many people have
observed that these forces have had ambivalent effects. Tremendous benefits made possible by
scientists and the scientific method have not been without negative impacts on the Earth, and in
some cases, for the poor. The automobile has brought us convenience in transport, yet we have
paved over much fertile farmland to make roads. Fossil fuels, such as oil and gas, have made possible
all manner of industry and devices, yet the carbon dioxide emissions from their burning play a
significant role in disrupting our atmosphere and climate. Nuclear technologies can promote health,
for example, through radiation treatments for cancer. Yet these same when used for war could bring
about indescribably horrific suffering. Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gasses, which is good,
but its waste products are radioactive (acutely dangerous) for 10,000 years or more. The wealthy
nations of the world have generated great economic benefits through technology, but at times these
technologies have extracted goods from poorer countries, and further frustrated their economic
growth.
Science and the scientific method do not, by themselves, indicate what humans should do. By
working to minimize bias, scientists are better able to determine knowledge of the natural world.
But the "exclusion" of human values from the scientific method - which might bias the results - also
means that its products are considered by most people to be amoral, in other words, neither ethical
nor unethical. This has resulted in the widespread perception that scientific and technological
developments should continue without considering the ethical implications of their products. The
scientific method attempts to be free of bias, but the technological products of science have
tremendous implications for social and environmental ethics.
The contributions of ecology
But "science" has many branches, or disciplines; it is not a single, homogenous entity. Physics,
chemistry and biology all share the scientific method, but they have differences as well. The
Biological sciences, and especially the discipline of ecology, play a particularly strong role in
explaining humanity's relationship with the natural world. Biology was developed in the 19th
Century when scientists discovered that all living organisms share characteristics. In a modified form,
Charles Darwin's discovery of evolution is still a foundational principle of biology. Evolution provides
a coherent and unifying explanation for why life on Earth is biologically diverse, why our planet hosts
so many different kinds of species. A "species" is the basic unit of biological classification, generally
defined as a group of organisms sufficiently similar that they can sexually reproduce and generate

21
fertile offspring. For several reasons, there is no agreed upon number of species on Earth (between
two and a hundred million, depending on how they are estimated and how much uncertainty is
considered).
Ecology is the study of the distribution and abundance of living organisms and the interactions
among organisms and between organisms and their environment. This scientific discipline addresses
the challenges of researching complex data in the natural world. Over the past few decades, biology
has largely conducted studies with living organisms in laboratories. This allows for very precise
research, but usually at the expense of considering the broader environmental context in which
organisms naturally live. The great investment in laboratory work is part of a broader trend in
science: reductionism, or the study of complex phenomena by analyzing only their individual
components.
Ecology takes a different approach, because it studies living organisms in dynamic systems. Thus, it
tackles the big picture questions in environmental science. This ambition is admirable, but makes the
gathering of consistent data very difficult. Biological research restricted to a laboratory is better able
to determine cause and effect relationships, but usually disregards the broader and more complex
environmental implications. Ecologists investigate the dynamic changing relationships between
populations, groups of organisms, and food and energy flows, over time and in response to various
stresses (such as pollution). They often research the impact of human behavior on natural
communities.
The science of ecology has contributed a most important concept: the ecosystem. An ecosystem is
an association of organisms and their physical environment, interconnected by the circulation of
energy and nutrients. An ecosystem may be any size, from a drop of water to our entire planet. All
creatures live within some kind of ecosystem and relate or influence each other - and their
environment - by their behavior. The idea of an ecosystem is critical to understanding the patterns of
life on earth, and points to the inescapable inter-relatedness of all life.
The extinction of species is considered an event of special ethical concern because it is an
irreversible act, much like murder or execution. Each species is the result of an irreproducible
process of evolution and speciation (the evolutionary process by which species arise). The passage of
the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 1973 was landmark legislation that reflected environmental
ethical concerns that had been expressed over the prior decades. Conservation Biology (also known
as Conservation Ecology) is a special subfield interested in the preservation of life's full diversity, and
the ecosystems necessary to support their conservation. It is an example of a scientific field that has
an explicit ethical orientation: the conservation of biological diversity. This is an example of the
ethical notion of consequence.
The special relationship of ecology and environmental ethics
Ecology plays a privileged role in environmental ethics. Aldo Leopold and Rachel Carson were two
pioneering environmental ethicists with advanced training in ecology, and this profoundly influenced
their moral vision of the natural world. Leopold was an ecologist, farmer, forester and
conservationist who wrote explicitly about human moral duties to nature. He was the first to
articulate a land ethic, or to describe moral responsibilities for land. His most important book was "A
Sand County Almanac" (Leopold, 1949). In his chapter on a land ethic he claimed: "a thing is right
when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong
when it tends otherwise." This appears to be the first explicit ethical statement about the
importance of an ecosystem. Leopold expanded the boundaries of what was morally considerable
from human society to include biological communities.
The philosophy of Deep Ecology, first named and articulated by Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss,
builds on Leopold's land ethic and the science of ecology to articulate a vision for how humans
should live in relationship to the Earth. Deep Ecology begins with the proposition that humans are a
part of the earth. Many Deep Ecologists assert that humans have no more rights than other forms of
life, and that a radical reorientation in human society is necessary to live within the limits of what
the Earth's ecosystems can provide. They reject the very notion of "natural resources" because that

22
statement assumes that elements and organisms are important only as economic commodities for
humans. Deep Ecology asserts that nature, the environment, and ecosystems have intrinsic value,
meaning that they are deserving of moral consideration and protection merely because they exist.
They do not have value because they meet human needs, but because they are a part of the Earth.
Deep Ecology argues that a human-centered worldview, known as anthropocentrism, is at the root
of our environmental crises. This line of critique links exponential human population growth and
environmental degradation as being symptoms of a worldview that does not value other forms of
life, and ignores the consequences of disrupting ecosystems. It proposes biocentrism, or an eco-
centric approach, as the antidote, although there are several variations of these. Some propose that
humans have no more rights than other forms of life, although this is easier to say than to actually
live out. A more practical biocentric philosophical approach argues that the Earth's ecosystems
deserve our respect and protection.
This principle of the Earth and its creatures having intrinsic value is particularly strong in Deep
Ecology, but is in no way limited to this philosophical approach. Concern for threatened and
endangered species is based on the principle of intrinsic value. Most species of organisms in the
environment do not provide economic value, or at least we do not have clear evidence of how they
provide direct benefits to humans. Restraining human activities that harm the earth, when
undertaken for non-economic reasons, can be traced back to some kind ethic, whether it is beauty
(an aesthetic ethic) or just because it is (intrinsic value). Many arguments for the conservation of
biological diversity reach an impasse because proponents assume that other forms of life have
intrinsic moral value, while their opponents do not. Finding ways to move beyond this impasse is an
essential task for environmental ethics.
The idea of the ecosystem has contributed to the philosophical idea of holism, or the idea that a
system has properties that can only be perceived by looking at components, their inter-relationships,
and the functioning of the whole system. For example, a scientist can examine individual organisms
in a laboratory setting, but they may behave differently in their natural environment. The ethical
implication of holism is that entire systems have moral significance, meaning that we have duties to
consider not merely individual members but the entire set of relationships and attributes of whole
ecosystems. This proposition has a certain philosophical appeal, but translating it into an applied
ethical practice is challenging. Few people appear capable or disposed to actually consider the well-
being of ecosystems in their moral decision making. Finding an appropriate way to apply the concept
of holism is on the frontier of environmental ethics. The science of ecology has made visible the
inner workings of the ecological bases of holism. It is the task of environmental ethics to propose
what how we should live in order to conserve the ecological processes upon which all life depends.
Questions:
1. Do you believe that the diversity of life has intrinsic value? Why or why not? How do you assess
the beliefs of those who disagree with you?
2. Imagine you were asked to make an argument for protecting an endangered species, but at the
cost of restricting economic development. How would you combine scientific and ethical principles
to do so?
3. Have you ever heard or made an ethical argument based on holism? Have you thought about the
relationship between the concept of an ecosystem and an ethic of holism? How might you use these
ideas in an ethical argument?

23
 Lesson Eight
Precaution and the Responsibility Principle
By Keith Douglass Warner OFM, with David DeCosse
The awesome power of modern science and technology, applied in the context of a global capitalist
economy, has given rise to planetary scale environmental problems. These threaten the integrity of
ecosystems upon which human society depends, and scientific experts are now documenting
numerous aspects of nature which human society is irreversibly changing. Some of these changes
are relatively innocuous, but many appear to have ominous implications for the diversity of life and
the future of human society.
Some scientists and philosophers now argue that humanity is in a new ethical moment, that the
scientific, technological and economic revolutions of the past two centuries have raised new
challenges for human society and its ability to grapple with the consequences of these revolutions.
As German environmental policymakers grappled with the effects of air pollution on aquatic and
forest ecosystems, commonly known as acid rain, in the 1970s, they articulated a new principle in
their planning for environmental protection. The term is vorsogeprinzip, which can be translated as
foresight principle, or responsibility principle. It was originally used as a principle to guide deliberate
planning. For the purposes of this lesson, it is translated as responsibility principle.
Origins of an ethic of precaution
During the 1980s, the German philosopher Hans Jonas further developed the ethical implications of
vorsogeprinzip, and it subsequently entered the English language as the precautionary principle.
Jonas argued that, formerly, humans were a part of nature. They understood themselves as integral
to nature, and could not act so as to seriously disrupt their environment. The Enlightenment
revolutions in science, technology and economics changed that way of thinking and our capacity to
destroy the environment upon which society depends. We humans are now able to intervene in
nature in ways not previously possible. A number of these technological interventions can cause
irreversible harm to human health and the environment, and that this demands more sustained
ethical reflection from every stakeholder, those who benefit and those who are harmed by these
technologies. Jonas proposed that humans now suffer from an ethical gap, and that traditional
understandings of ethics do not provide sufficient guidance. In his mind, the gap exists between our
technological capabilities and our capacity for exercising moral responsibility, to other forms of life
and future generations. Jonas argued that decision-making in relation to potentially catastrophic
environmental risks carries with it a special moral responsibility which only an ethical principle, not a
pragmatic balancing, is appropriate.
The responsibility principle is an alternative to utilitarianism, which is an ethical view which
evaluates an action only on the basis of how well it maximizes the well-being or pleasure as summed
among all persons. It is thus a form of consequentialist ethics, meaning that the morality of an action
is determined by its outcome. Utilitarianism is often described by the phrase: "the greatest good for
the greatest number of people." This ethical view may be incompatible with principles
environmental ethics, such as endangered species conservation. Even if "the greatest number of
people" is expanded to "the greatest number of creatures," a utilitarian view may result in a small
number of people or organisms being forced to suffer a great deal so that the majority experiences
some benefit. For example, there are very few polar bears in the arctic, and they are threatened by
the fossil fuel burning to provide goods to billions of humans. A utilitarian could reasonable argue
that the needs of a few polar bears must be sacrificed for the greater numbers of human beings. This
would, of course, be incompatible with the responsibility principle.
Jonas and the precautionary principle offer a major contribution from the field of applied
environmental ethics, and address a fundamental challenge of environmental ethics: most ethical
principles were created to arbitrate problems within the human community. Yet from a historical
perspective, we can trace the essence of precaution back to Aquinas' concept of prudence and
Aristotle's treatment of the Greek term phronesis, which can be translated as prudence, practical
wisdom. This could be understood as intelligence as a precursor to precaution. In Aristotle's

24
"Nicomachean Ethics," phronesis is "the science of what is just, fine and good for a human being." It
requires skill in gathering knowledge and making judgments about it. Prudent actions have to be
calibrated intelligently to the circumstances, avoiding both cringing fear and brash heroics.
Connecting the responsibility principle with policy
Around the world the responsibility (or precautionary) principle is now incorporated into
environmental decision making, regulations, and treaties. It is a frequently discussed principle
among European governments and within their regulatory agencies. It first found its way into a
European treaty managing the North Sea in 1987, and subsequently the Treaty on the European
Union (also known as the Maastricht Treaty), the 1993 charter for the European Union. The 1992
United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development provides a commonly used
definition: "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, the lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason for the postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation." Over the past three decades, the United States government has
generally favored cost-benefit analysis over precautionary thinking in regulation. Note the Rio
Declaration does not reject the more common and utilitarian cost-benefit analysis, but rather
provides an ethical context in which to conduct and interpret such an analysis. U.S. and European
approaches to environmental governance and regulation have diverged about the philosophical
basis of precaution versus rational risk management, guided by cost-benefit analyses. This
divergence underlies many of the trans-Atlantic tensions over trade, global climate disruption and
transgenic organism regulations.
The ethic of precaution provides a moral principle that can inform our efforts to make good public
policy decisions about the environment. Jonas wrote: "never must the existence or the essence of
man as a whole be made a stake in the hazards of an action…this is an unqualified command." If
something has irreversible potential, then we must give that possibility greater weight in our
reasoning. The wholesale collapse of ecosystems, the long term disruption of global climate, and the
irreversibility of a species loss should give us pause, and challenge us to consider our responsibilities:
to neighbors, the future, and the Earth. It should also challenge us to consider what principles by
which we want to live.
Questions:
1. Few people would openly disagree with the Jonas statement above, but many might not, in fact,
uphold this principle in environmental decision making. Do you agree? Why might this be?
2. Can you think of an example when the responsibility principle was used in environmental decision
making?

25
 Lesson Nine
Climate ethics
By Keith Douglass Warner OFM, with David DeCosse

The human-caused disruption of our global climate poses a graver threat to the human family and its
environment unlike any prior problem. As an environmental issue, global climate disruption is
unprecedented in its scale and seriousness. Devising a comprehensive solution to climate disruption
tests our social, political and economic institutions beyond their current capacities. The impacts of
climate disruption will reach deeper and deeper into human society over the coming decades.
Confronting climate disruption inevitably requires challenging the way we think about energy
production from fossil fuel sources, in other words, the energy basis of our modern industrial
society. Few people are willing to seriously consider the scale of technological, economic, and social
transformation required to reverse the trend of carbon dioxide pollution. The international
dimension of carbon emissions further complicates matters. Because we have one global
atmosphere, and it matters not which country or industrial source emits greenhouse gasses, tackling
climate change will require unprecedented international cooperation. Over the past two centuries,
the advanced industrial countries have created astounding wealth with energy, resulting in carbon
dioxide pollution, yet the poorer countries of the world still seeking authentic development, in part
to address the needs of the 2 billion people living in severe poverty, cannot possibly copy our model
of economic development without making life on earth uninhabitable. Confronting climate
disruption requires confronting the un-sustainable American lifestyle, and most Americans find that
inconvenient.
Science + Economics + Politics + Ethics Needed
Strategies to arrest climate disruption require the bundling of different kinds of intellectual
resources, including ethical one. If the scientific data had been unambiguous in prior decades, we
might have already formulated a response. If economic incentives had already existed for emitting
fewer greenhouse gasses, we would probably have begun to take action on this issue. Yet climate
disruption requires new abilities to understand how we are disrupting the planet's climate (science),
new ways of thinking and acting collaboratively (economics and politics), as well as developing a
moral basis for making difficult decisions. For the reality is that climate disruption challenges us to
revolutionize our sources of energy, which will be expensive and difficult, but will also require us to
make choices against our short-term, self-interest. Cleaner and greener technology must be a part of
a moral response to climate disruption, but this alone will not suffice. Persuading people to behave
in new ways is relatively easy if they have economic incentives to do so. Confronting climate
disruption will require sacrifices, however, and some of our modern conveniences - and wasteful
practices - will have to change. To believe otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the severity
of our present challenges.
The field of climate ethics has emerged to provide guidance for the difficult decisions we face.
Scientific and economic data do not, on their own, indicate what we should do. They describe what
is and inform human decisions, not what should be, nor how to make sound, ethical decisions. This
new branch of environmental ethics addresses perennial concerns in ethics: the distribution of
responsibilities, the meaning of justice, and guidance in making morally-sound decisions. We will
need to understand and apply these principles to engage all sectors of society for the difficult
choices and actions we will have to take. Ultimately, protecting ourselves and our planet from a
disrupted climate will require creating a shared moral vision, a common understanding of our need
to protect the common good which includes our common climate.
The challenge of perceiving the problems
Several inherent traits of gasses and our global climate have made it more difficult to address the
problems with its disruption. Carbon dioxide is invisible yet everywhere in our biosphere. It is in our
bodies, and we breathe it in and out every moment. This makes it more difficult to recognize it as a
pollutant. Carbon dioxide is not the only climate changing gas, but it is the most common. Second,

26
modern technologies have given us the power to disrupt a complex global system that most people
cannot see without sophisticated instruments. Climate consists of the long-term pattern of weather,
and thus, it requires a great deal of data gathered over a wide area and analyzed with statistics. We
all use fossil fuel energy every day, whether we are aware of it or not. Prior pollution problems were
either directly visible, or their effects were directly observable. The fact that none of us can actually
"see" the climate -- or its disruption - makes it more difficult to convince people of the seriousness of
this problem.
Climate science as a scientific field is relatively new. It is very complex, in part because our global
climate itself is so fluid, diverse and naturally dynamic. It requires gathering of data across extensive
areas and back through time. Before scientists can determine whether or not we are disrupting our
climate, they first have to determine "normal" climate and its variations, using statistics. They
develop highly sophisticated computer models, and into them they insert very large collections of
data about temperature, precipitation and their patterns across time and space. Then they go about
determining degrees of statistical difference between normal variability and human-caused change.
These computer models are essential to calculating the difference between a naturally dynamic
climate and the effect of humans emitting climate disrupting gasses. Recall that our Earth is a
dynamic and changing planet, so mere variability is to be expected. Temperature and rainfall vary
naturally. Climate change models suggest that human-caused climate change will be uneven across
the globe. In some cases, the temperatures may drop, or the temperature change is insignificant
relative to predictions of drastically different rainfall patterns. For these reasons, "climate
disruption" is a more accurate term than "climate change" or "global warming." Teasing out natural
from human-caused climate change requires enormous amount of expensive scientific work, and
depends upon creating sophisticated computer modeling and analysis. Unlike laboratory
experiments which have results that can be reproduced by others, the sophistication of global
climate science effectively excludes non-experts, not by design, but rather because the science is so
complex.
These factors have contributed to the skepticism about the reality of global climate change. Twenty
years ago, when concerns first began to emerge in the scientific community, scientists did not have
sufficient data or resources or models to understand how human fossil fuel burning was affecting
the climate. Some large economic interests have profited immensely from the "carbon economy," or
fossil fuel burning activities, and many of them resisted the idea of controlling something as
harmless as carbon dioxide. They - and many elected officials - raised questions about the perceived
inadequacy of our knowledge of climate science and disruption. Some of these questions were
legitimate, but some of them appear to be stalling tactics. At first glance, it is difficult for most
people to imagine that human actions could disrupt global climate. The idea of climate disruption
implicates our carbon economy and the tremendous wealth it has created, at least for some
countries. Creating a sustainable energy economy is an enormous and very expensive project, at
least in the short term.
During the 1990s, large economic interests hired public relations firms to argue that the state of the
science was not sufficient to argue for addressing this by reforming energy policies. Some scientists
were hired to express skepticism. Disagreement is a normal part of the give-and-take of scientific
inquiry. These economic interests also hired scientists to express an explicitly contrarian point of
view, meaning that they set out to undermine the credibility of legitimate scientists and their work.
In general, scientists welcome thoughtful criticism of their work, grounded in critical thinking about
data collection, methods, and theory. Climate contrarians go far beyond critique to attack the
existence of this data and its scientific interpretation. Until recently, these efforts were particularly
effective in sowing doubt in the mind of American public opinion, although this appears to be
changing.
For this reason, understanding one's sources of information about global climate disruption is
absolutely essential. A majority of the information about this issue on a typical internet search

27
reflects some kind of bias or political agenda. Sadly, even our Federal government has suppressed or
distorted data about the seriousness of the problem.
Global climate science and the problem of trust
The issue of confidence in sources of scientific information is very important, but beyond the scope
of this project. For the purposes of this lesson, scientific research findings from two government
bodies are recommended, the California Energy Commission's Climate Change Portal,
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm.
The IPCC is particularly noteworthy, for it is one of the most ambitious efforts to assess the results
from a scientific community beset by controversies. The United Nations (UN) created the IPCC to
evaluate in an open and objective manner the state of climate change science, and to provide
reports thus informed to policy makers. The IPCC solicits contributions from scientists around the
world and foster efforts to identify consensus agreement among climate scientists, and responsibly
represent areas of agreement and uncertainty to governments. In the 1990s, the IPCC tried to
assess: is the climate changing? If so, what would be its impacts? By 2000, it had documented some
of impacts and was attempting to tease out which changes were being caused by humans. As of this
writing, the IPCC has determined that there is unequivocal consensus in the scientific community
that humans are changing the climate, and that the consequences will be serious. The IPCC received
the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, the first such prize for a group of scientists.
The UN has tried to broker scientific understanding and international cooperation on climate
disruption since the Brundland Report in 1987. Climate was on the agenda at the "Earth Summit" at
Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and this resulted in the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Although flawed, this has
been the most important international agreement to address climate disrupting gasses. The U.S. is
alone among major countries in refusing to sign it, although several other governments have
resisted its mandates. U.N.-sponsored efforts continue to facilitate an international agreement that
could actually result in reducing the emission of climate disrupting gasses. An international
agreement without US support is essentially meaningless since we have been by far the greatest
source of carbon emissions. It appears that China has surpassed US levels of climate disrupting gas
emission on an annual basis, but the US still emits more on a per person basis than any other
country. More US domestic political support for action on climate disruption will be necessary for
any such agreement to be endorsed by our government.
Ethics and the distribution of risks
But disrupting our climate is not merely scientific, economic, and political. It also has an ethical
dimension, because addressing this problem will require us to make very difficult, costly, and
sacrificial decisions, with imperfect knowledge. Fossil fuels are simply too easy to burn for energy,
and the impacts of climate disruption do not directly harm the people who benefit from burning
them. Addressing climate change means addressing relatively cheap fossil fuel energy, and thus
economic development for very poor countries. Many of the climate change issues that are at first
glance scientific and economic have profound ethical questions bundled in with them.
Climate ethics confront ethical dilemmas, or problems that defy simple solutions because legitimate
interests are pitted against each other. Any meaningful reduction in climate disrupting gasses will
have to be based on international cooperation. This will require countries to practice more self-
restraint than any prior international environmental treaty. Addressing the ethical dimension of
climate disruption must necessarily address the reality of a wide and accelerating gap between the
wealthy and the poor. Those already suffering from de-humanizing poverty -- and those most likely
to suffer from a disrupted climate- are least likely to have benefited from prior burning of fossil fuels
that have emitted the carbon in our atmosphere. Global climate disruption threatens all the hard-
fought gains in sustainable development around the world. Addressing climate disruption is
inescapably linked to the uneven and inequitable global economic development. Any international
solution will necessarily have to address the ethical implications of that as well.

28
Questions:
1. Do you agree that "global warming" should be called "global climate disruption? What are the
pros and cons of these phrases?
2. Some people believe that this problem will be solved primarily by technological innovation. Do
you agree?
3. After they learn about the scale of climate problems, some people feel overwhelmed and want to
avoid the issue. What tools from environmental ethics could you use to engage them?
More resources:
Brown, D. et al., 2007. White Paper on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change. Rock Ethics
Institute at The Pennsylvania State University, http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate/policy/edcc.shtml
Speth, J.G., 2004. Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment. Yale
University Press, New Haven.

29
 Lesson Ten
Religious Environmental Ethics
By Keith Douglass Warner OFM, with David DeCosse

All the religions of the world have traditionally expressed some ethical concern for the environment
and its creatures. They have accorded some moral significance to other creatures, and proposed
some ethical responsibilities on the part of humans, although these ethical dimensions are usually
secondary, or inferior, relative to responsibilities to other humans. Throughout history, the world's
religions have understood the Earth to have some kind of religious significance, or religious value,
and that humans have some religious obligations to care for its creatures. These shared ethical
concerns are found in historical teachings, and not necessarily in actual religious practices. Greed
and destructiveness are condemned, while restraint and protection are affirmed by most religious
traditions. For reasons that are complex, controversial, and poorly understood, these religious
concerns for the environment faded with the rise of modern society. The development of modern
scientific, economic and political institutions have taken the place historically accorded to religion,
and traditional religious attitudes toward nature have largely disappeared in modern societies. Over
the past few decades, however, some leaders of every religion in the world have returned to their
origins to recover their pre-modern religious environmental teachings to present them as religious
environmental ethics.
Are Western religions the cause of environmental problems?
The issue of religious attitudes toward nature was publicized in a widely-read 1967 paper titled "The
Historic Roots of our Ecological Crisis," published in Science by Lynn White Jr. This paper more
generally critiqued Western societies for using science and technology to dominate and degrade
their environment, but he accused Christianity in specific of enforcing a human-centered worldview.
White was helpful in opening up religious perspective on the environment, science and technology,
but he offered an overly simplistic view of Christianity and the influence it had on Western culture
and attitudes toward nature. For example, he stated that "Especially in its Western form, Christianity
is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen;" and that for the ecological crisis,
"Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt." Note that these are emotionally charged, critical
statements. He did identify an "alternative" Christian view in St. Francis of Assisi (d. 1226), whom he
proposed as patron saint of ecologists, although he profoundly misinterpreted Francis's relationship
with the Catholic Church by labeling his views as heretical.
White's critique circulated widely because it appealed to anti-religious views within the scientific
community. Many Christian leaders took great offense and offered vigorous critiques of White, and
proposed counter offensives on behalf of Christianity. More sober assessments of religion's role in
the environmental crisis concluded that religious institutions were guilty of sins of omission, of
failing to lay out a religious rationale for environmental protection. During the 1970s and 1980s,
many Jewish and Christian Scripture scholars revisited ancient texts to reexamine what kind of
teachings about the moral significance of nature could be found. Many Protestant scholars and
theologians began identifying and describing a stewardship ethic in the first two chapters of the
book of Genesis.
The religions discover a moral voice on environmental issues
Pope John Paul II made a significant contribution to the retrieval of stewardship ethics within
Christianity. In 1990 he wrote a World Day of Peace message titled "The Ecological Crisis: A Common
Responsibility," and this, combined with efforts in Orthodox and some Protestant denominations
brought most branches of Christianity into dialogue with environmental problems. Pope John Paul II
had, in fact, acted upon White's suggestion, naming St. Francis the Patron Saint of Ecology in 1979.
In "The Ecological Crisis" he asserted that environmental problems are a moral crisis for all
humanity, and that the environment is ethically significant in its own right. In other words, nature
has intrinsic value as God's creation. Its conclusion reads: "Today, the ecological crisis has assumed
such proportions as to be the responsibility of everyone. As I have pointed out, its various aspects

30
demonstrate the need for concentrated efforts aimed at establishing the duties and obligations that
belong to individuals, peoples, States, and the international community." Thus, all members and
groups in the human family, regardless of their faith or whether they have faith, have responsibilities
to the environment. He drew this conclusion in part from his interpretation of the Genesis creation
stories.
The Hebrew Scriptures, or Old Testament, have multiple stories that describe the creation of the
cosmos and earth, and offer explanations of religious significance of these stories. The best known is
that of Genesis 1 which narrates the seven-day process of creation. Much of the debate over
stewardship ethics in the Judeo-Christian tradition turns on a single word in Genesis 1:28: man(kind)
is to practice "dominion" over the Earth. Some religious and nonreligious persons argue that this
verse and word mean that humans should exercise domination over Earth's creatures. But the same
Hebrew term is used to describe God's care of the Earth and its peoples, founded on love and
compassion. Among Biblical scholars, a consensus interpretation has emerged: humans are to reflect
the same care that the Creator has for humans in our own care for creation. Thus, the term
"dominion" should be translated as "duty to care," or stewardship. Genesis 2 provides an alternate
creation story, one in which man (sic) is created from the dust and placed in "the garden" to "till and
to protect (or serve)." Thus, this creation story as well describes human duties toward the Earth.
Although these passages reinforce the assertion of the Judeo-Christian tradition as anthropocentric,
they do provide the basis for asserting that humans have moral duties toward the environment.

The Earth as sacramental

Within Christianity, the vision of living within a sacramental universe complements the idea of
stewardship ethics. A "sacrament" is a visible expression of divine love, and Christians celebrate
certain rituals (e.g., baptism, eucharist) as sacraments. Recent theological thinking has sought to
recover the ancient understanding of these rituals within a broader understanding of the entire
created world as having religious significance. This approach re-visions the continuity between the
formal sacraments and the physicality of our world. Evidence of this shift in thinking can be found in
the substitution of "creation" for words "environment" or "nature." Thus, the scope of religious
concern is not restricted to humans or their formal houses of worship, but rather extends out to
include all life, indeed, all of the created world.
St. Francis of Assisi is an example of someone who understood himself to live in a world charged
with divine life, in a sacramental world. He was named Patron Saint of Ecologists because he
celebrated the beauty and diversity of creation through his prayer and preaching. His "Canticle of
the Creatures" was the first song written in Italian and in it Francis sang of all creation as brother and
sister. This song is an expression of his moral imagination, because it reflects how he understood
himself to live a life of essential kinship with all creation. He preached to water, rocks, flowers, birds
and other animals. He viewed the entire created world as members of the divine family. His intimacy
with creation emerged from extended experiences in the wildlands of the Italian Peninsula. He
stands out in Western Christianity as one who lived out a bio-centric vision of the moral life.
The sacramental understanding of the universe is particularly strong among Eastern Orthodox
Christians. Their most notable leader, the "Green Patriarch," Bartholomew I is renowned for
declaring that "crime against the natural world is a sin" in 1995. He has organized numerous trips on
a ship to convene religious, scientific and political leaders to create environmental protection
initiatives. While some may find the language of "sin" troubling, Patriarch Bartholomew has
captured great media interest. The so-called "mainline" or socially engaged Protestant
denominations have issued numerous statements and resolutions, and conducted outreach, dating
back several decades. More recently the politically influential Evangelical denominations have begun
to articulate their understanding of environmental ethics, which some of them describe as "creation
care."
The Greening of Religion

31
This is a global, trans-religious phenomenon. Buddhist philosophy appears particularly amenable to
environmental ethics. Many notable Buddhist leaders articulate environmental concerns with moral
responsibility and a core concept that can be translated from Sanskrit as "inter-dependent arising."
This concept is a fundamental in Buddhist philosophy. Shared across all schools of Buddhism, it
states that phenomena arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect. This
concept underlies Buddhist thinking about mutual relationships of cause and effect, and the
essential interdependence of all life. Apparently it pre-disposes some Buddhists to recognizing the
importance of environmental restraint, or non-harming. It has had a great influence on Deep
ecology.
The Greening of Religion is taking place in every religious tradition, yet drawing general conclusions
is difficult. This is true in part because making broad definitive statements about religious belief is
problematic, but also because many of the factors prompting religious environmental teaching and
ethical practice are local, even as our environmental problems occur on a global scale. However, in
general, religious leaders seek to present religious environmental ethics less as something that is
new, but instead as a traditional set of ethical responsibilities that need to be retrieved and re-
presented in a new era. Religious environmental ethics arise within the context of an existing moral
worldview. Thus, the emergence of religious environmental ethics are not seen as an external
concern that must be grafted on to a tradition, but rather an ancient wisdom that has been lost and
must be rediscovered. The Greening of Religion may have terrific potential for sparking broad
changes in human society, in the thinking and acting of many people. Realizing this potential will
require many people living a moral life according to the vision of these new religious environmental
ethics.
Questions:
1. Do you think religions can foster moral thinking and acting about the environment?
2. What kind of contribution might they best make to environmental initiatives?
3. Do you believe you have a religious responsibility to protect the environment? To encourage
others to do so?

32
 Lesson Eleven
Eating and Agricultural Ethics
By Keith Douglass Warner OFM, with David DeCosse

Rachel Carson is credited with launching the modern environmental movement with her landmark
book, "Silent Spring" (Carson, 1962). She documented and decried the widespread harm caused by
pesticides ("the elixirs of death") to birds, other wildlife, and ecosystems. She explained how expert
scientists had developed pesticides, and how despite their expertise, they failed to consider the
unintended impacts on creatures other than insect pests. The final chapter points to "the other
road," of alternative means of pest control, based more on biology and ecology, and less on
chemistry. She effectively argued that these alternatives were environmentally, socially, and
ethically preferable. Thus, she argued for choosing these alternatives on the basis of implicit ethics.
Her book provoked a national debate about pesticides, but also about environmental ethics,
government regulation of industry and the appropriate uses of technology. Her work cast light on
the cozy relationship pesticide manufacturers had with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which
had regulatory authority over pesticides. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created in
part to address the problems she brought to the public eye, including pesticide regulation.
Although she did not reference Aldo Leopold, she extended some of the ethical ideas he proposed in
his land ethics, such as human duties to the natural world. Previous expressions of environmental
concern associated with agriculture had emerged during the Dust Bowl, and resulted in soil
conservation initiatives. Topsoil is a finite resource, and easily eroded if a farmer is careless. Carson's
description of pesticide problems captured the concerns of a broad section of American society,
which had largely assumed that they were safe, whether they were use used on farms or in cities.
Worries about pesticide residues on food occasionally irrupt and remind eaters of our essential
relationship with agriculture.
Social justice for farm workers
During the 1960s, César Chávez launched farm worker union and social movement to address a
grave injustice in agriculture: the exploitation of farm workers. California is home to the most
sophisticated industrial agricultural practices, growing more than half of our nation's fresh fruits,
vegetables and nuts. Ironically, it employs more farm workers than any other state. Farm workers
were -- and some still are - among the least paid laborers in the country. Chávez confronted an
enormously powerful set of agricultural institutions (including financial and legal institutions) plus
racism, and started a non-violent movement to create a society more favorable to union organizing.
This movement developed and practiced non-violent strategies, pioneered by Mahatma Gandhi, to
create more just wages and work place conditions. When labor strikes did not bring growers to the
negotiating table, the farm worker movement created a very successful boycott of table grapes,
which invited eaters to express solidarity with the farm workers. Chávez and the United Farm
Workers were concerned about pesticides and their effects on field workers dating back to the early
days of the union, and successfully negotiated restrictions on their use through labor contracts.
Eating is an agricultural and ethical act
In "The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture" Wendell Berry described the general exodus
of people from farms to cities and its implications for society and agriculture. He critiqued the wide
range of social and environmental impacts of industrial agriculture, and decried modern society's
alienation from the farm and environment. He argued that the kind of farming people do reveals
their assumed land ethic, their environmental values. In a short essay titled "The Pleasures of Eating"
he argued that eating is an agricultural act, meaning that all humans are involved in agriculture,
whether directly or indirectly, and that how we eat shapes how land is treated. Berry was one of
many people who criticized shallow thinking about the environment, the assumption that "pure"
nature is only in parks and wilderness areas. He explained how social and environmental values were
incorporated in agricultural institutions (scientific, government, private industry) and patterns of
thought about agriculture.

33
Agriculture (farming and grazing) takes place on roughly one-third to one-half of the land on Earth.
When combined with other food collection activities (fishing), they have tremendous impacts on the
natural environment. Many of the world's two billion poorest people are farming, generally in
marginal environments where topsoil or water are scarce. Few of these people are integrated into a
capitalist economy, and when their crops fail, they depend upon the world's charity to provide
emergency supplies. Thus, global hunger and environmental stewardship ethics are necessarily
related. Environmental degradation can undermine the ability of the poor to feed themselves.
The U.S. sustainable agriculture movement developed during the 1980s to conceptually link the
economic crisis caused by farm bankruptcies with the environmental problems of agrochemical and
soil pollution. This movement has advocated for farming practices, governmental policies and
economic markets that support alternatives to the environmentally problematic industrial farming
model. This movement adopted the three fold approach of concern for environmental protection,
economic development and social equity. The movement has used sustainability ethics argue for
more environmentally friendly forms of farming (e.g., organic), greater economic opportunities in
farming and rural communities, and the health and safety of workers and eaters. Social equity
concerns most frequently include economic justice for farm workers, and access to food for the
poor. One of the simplest ways to put agricultural ethics into practice is by buying locally grown,
seasonal food from the producer, such as at a farmers market.
Questions:
1. Do you think of eating as an agricultural act?
2. What ethical values do you already incorporate into your food choices?
3. Does the scope of your environmental concern include farming?

34
 Lesson Twelve
An Environmental Ethics Decision-Making Guide
By Keith Douglass Warner OFM, with David DeCosse

This lesson presents a decision making guide that will allow you to integrate what you have learned
in the prior lessons. The chief value of this guide is that it will challenge you to clarify your own
thinking about the various factors that need to be weighed to make an ethical decision regarding an
environmental issue. The decision-making model has three general steps: Analysis, Assessment, and
Action. Even if you cannot answer every one of these questions, organizing your thinking into these
three major components will help you avoid the fatal flaw of confusing the empirical with the
normative, or moral.
This guide is adapted from the excellent model proposed by James Martin-Schramm and Robert L.
Stivers in Christian Environmental Ethics: A Case Method Approach (see the footnote below). Their
model is meant to aid a decision involving a case in environmental ethics. We highly encourage you
to consult the extensive cases in their book. Other environmental ethics cases can be found by
searching on the Web. We also highly encourage you to use their decision-making model on a real-
life case that you may be confronting in your neighborhood or city. You should go through each step
of the model, take notes as you go, draw on the prior lesson plans.
Analysis (perceive the issues)
Personal factors: Is there anything in your personal experience that affects how you view the case?
Power dynamics: Among all the stakeholders in the case, do all have relatively equal power in terms
of making a decision? If not, why not?
Factual & scientific information: What are the key facts in the case? Is there any dispute about what
those facts are? What is the most plausible account of the facts? Is there indication that scientific
data is being presented in a biased way?
Complicating factors: Is there anything particularly unusual or complicated about the case? In terms
of science? Or of law?
Relationships: Do any of the key stakeholders have crucial issues of personal relationships that may
affect how they view the case?
Ethical issues: What is the primary ethical issue in the case? What are one or two secondary ethical
issues?
Alternatives and consequences: What are the key alternative courses of action? How do they treat
the primary ethical issue in the case? What are the likely positive and negative consequences of
these alternatives?
Assessment (use norms to evaluate alternatives)
Ethical vision: What would be a just resolution to these issues? Remember: Ethics is not only about
what we shouldn't do; it's also about how we imagine things should be.
Coping with imperfect environmental knowledge: how do you evaluate the certainty with which
alternatives are presented? How great are the risks of uncertain environmental impacts, and who
bears the burden of risk?
Ethical reasoning: Which mode appears most appropriate? (commands, consequences, character)
Moral principles: What key ethical principles are relevant? (Examples: justice, sufficiency,
sustainability, solidarity, participation and precaution)
Virtues: What kind of character traits do you want to be reflected in your decisions? (Examples:
prudence, precaution, courage)
Action (make the decision and act on it)
Decision: Which alternative is morally preferable?
Justification: how do you justify it in terms of the moral principles and the moral reasoning above?
Communication: How will you communicate this information to diverse audiences so it is morally
reasonable?

35
Reflection: Looking back on the case, are there any aspects of it that were especially enlightening or
troubling? What new developments might cause you to reconsider your decision?

This matrix is derivative from Martin-Schramm & Stivers (2003) Christian Environmental Ethics: A
Case Method Approach (Orbis Press).
Keith Warner, OFM, is the Assistant Director for Education, Center for Science, Technology, and
Society at Santa Clara University and
David DeCosse is the Director of Campus Ethics Programs at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
May 2009

36