THE NON-HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

Questions of environmental ethics, of the ethical of moral responsibilities human beings

have toward the non-human world, only appeared in the twentieth century. Previously, most ethical
theorists focused more on interhuman relations rather than human-to-non-human relations.
Consequently, some argues that using any of the four ethical theories or frameworks may be an
exercise in anachronism, that is, in forcing together elements that belong to different time periods.
We will, therefore, merely suggest beginning possibilities for further exploration into an
environmental ethics based on any of the four classical ethical theories.

In the case of utilitarianism, some scholars point out that this hedonistic doctrine that
focuses on sovereignty of pleasures and pains in human decision-making should extend into other
creatures that can experience pleasures and pains; namely, animals. Thus, one of the sources of
animal ethics is utilitarianism. Of course, animals themselves cannot become moral agents because
they do not seem to have reason and free will. Some thinkers, however, will argue that animals can
experience pleasure and pain. Some would therefore argue that since greatest happiness principle
covers the greatest number of creatures that experience pleasure and pain, then that number
should include animals. Therefore, though only humans can make moral decisions, animal ethics
proponents argue that humans should always take into account the potential pleasure or pain that
they inflict in animals. What is good then is not only what is good for the greatest number of human
beings affected, but also for the greatest number of creatures that can feel pleasure or pain. To
extend the argument, though the other members of an ecosystem (e.g., plants) may not have the
capacity for pleasure and pain, humans still ought to perform actions that will not lead their
destruction, that in turn might lead to pain for the animals that live off them. There is a general call
for actions that do not just benefit humans but the whole ecosystem as well, since it is possible that
nonhuman creatures might be harmed by neglecting the ecosystem.

Since Kantian deontology focuses on the innate dignity of the human being as possessing
reason, it can be argued that one cannot possibly universalize maxims that, in the end, will lead to
an untenable social existence. Can one accept the following maxim as something that everyone
ought to follow: “One ought to not worry about environmental destruction, as long as it produces
economic wealth for my society?” Such thinking is shortsighted and, in the end, does not produce
universalizable maxims.

Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, may not necessarily talk about the physical
environment and human moral responsibility to it as such, but one can try to infer from his
philosophy that certain actions should be avoided because they do not produce a harmonious,
peaceful society. One can argue that neglecting the physical environment because of shortsighted
economic goals (e.g., overfishing waters off the coast of our islands or cutting down trees in our
mountains and hills) will eventually lead to disasters such as flooding or famines that will affect the
society in a detrimental fashion.
 Lastly, Aristotle’s virtue ethics also pick up on the problem of shortsightedness and ask how
this can possibly lead to becoming a better person. One may actually invent a neo-Aristotlelian vice
here: the vice of myopia. This is a nearsightedness, not a physical one, but in one’s understanding of
the implications of her actions. This problem is therefore connected to a lack of intellectual virtue,
to a deficiency in foresight. How can a person claim that she is cultivating her character (for the
purpose of finally attaining eudaimonia) if she is guilty of the vice of myopia? One becomes a better
person, therefore, if she learns to expand her vision to see beyond what is merely close at hand.
Thus, seeing beyond the immediate is a virtue. One may argue therefore that Aristotle would
support the argument that a person has the moral responsibility to see beyond what is immediate.
If so, one must see beyond the satisfaction of immediate economic needs and make sure that
harming the environment for the sake of such will not eventually lead to something much worse.

Slide 1

Introduction:

THE NON-HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

Slide 2

(Utilitarianism and Animal Ethics:)

Focuses on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, offers insights into animal ethics.

Slide 3

(Kantian Deontology and Universalizability)

Kantian deontology emphasizes human dignity and the universalizability of moral maxims.

Slide 4

(Thomas Aquinas and Environmental Responsibility)

Aquinas doesn't directly address environmental issues, his philosophy highlights societal harmony.

Slide 5

(Aristotle's Virtue Ethics and Myopia)

Aristotle's virtue ethics focuses on cultivating character and foresight.

Presenter: "Good afternoon, everyone. So now, let’s dive into the realm of environmental ethics.
Traditionally, ethical theories primarily focused on human-to-human interactions. However, in
the 20th century, a significant shift occurred, prompting scholars to consider our moral
responsibilities towards the non-human world. So, let's explore how classical ethical theories
shed light on this crucial topic."

Utilitarianism and Animal Ethics: Presenter: "Let's start with utilitarianism. This ethical
doctrine centers on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Now, some scholars argue
that these principles should extend beyond humans to include animals. Of course, animals
themselves cannot become moral agents because they do not seem to have reason and free
will. Some thinkers, however, will argue that animals can experience pleasure and pain.
Some would therefore argue that since greatest happiness principle covers the greatest
number of creatures that experience pleasure and pain, then that number should include
animals. Therefore, though only humans can make moral decisions, animal ethics
proponents argue that humans should always take into account the potential pleasure or
pain that they inflict in animals. What is good then is not only what is good for the greatest
number of human beings affected, but also for the greatest number of creatures that can feel
pleasure or pain. So, if I will be asked: Should the pleasure and pain experienced by
animals’ factor into our decision-making processes? and how might this align with the
utilitarian principle of maximizing happiness?"

 Answer: Yes, Considering the pleasure and pain of animals in decision-making processes is
crucial because it acknowledges their capacity to experience suffering and happiness. By
factoring in their well-being, we demonstrate empathy, fulfill ethical responsibilities and
recognize the interconnectedness of ecosystems and human societies. This aligns with the
utilitarian principle because maximizing happiness should include all sentient beings, not
just humans. Ignoring animal suffering would lead to a skewed understanding of what
constitutes the greatest good. Therefore, ethical decision-making should account for the
well-being of all affected beings.

Kantian Deontology and Universalizability: Presenter: "Moving on to Kantian deontology,

which emphasizes human dignity and universalizable moral maxims. Now, according to
Immanuel Kant, we cannot universalize maxims that lead to an untenable social existence. So,
consider that: we cannot justify prioritizing short-term economic gain over long-term
environmental preservation because it leads to an unsustainable social existence and Kantian
ethics guide our decision-making by emphasizing the importance of treating the environment
with respect and considering the long-term consequences of our actions. Kant's categorical
imperative would dictate that we treat the environment as an end in itself, not merely as a means
to economic gain. By universalizing the maxim to prioritize environmental preservation, we
uphold the dignity of all beings affected by our actions, present and future.

Question: why we cannot justify prioritizing short-term economic gain over long-term
environmental preservation?

Answer: We can't say it's okay to focus only on making quick money now, even if it harms the
environment in the long run. Why? Because if we keep damaging the environment, it will eventually
make life harder for everyone. It's like spending all your money today without saving any for tomorrow -
it might feel good now, but it's not smart because you'll have nothing left for the future. Similarly, if we
keep damaging the environment for short-term gain, it will eventually make life harder for everyone in
the long run. So, it's important to balance economic gain with protecting the environment for the well-
being of both present and future generations.

Explanation: Kant believed that we shouldn't make rules or principles that would lead to a
society that couldn't function properly or wouldn't be sustainable in the long run.

Imagine if everyone followed a rule like "It's okay to lie whenever it helps you get what you
want." If everyone lied all the time, nobody would trust each other, and society would fall apart
because nobody could rely on anyone else.

So, Kant's idea is that for a rule to be considered morally right, it should be something that
everyone could follow without causing chaos or harm to society. If a rule leads to a society that
can't function properly, then it's not a good rule according to Kant.

Explanation:

Kant's categorical imperative is like a rule or principle that he believed should guide our actions.
One aspect of this principle is that we should treat people (and by extension, things) with respect
and not just as tools or means to achieve our own goals. So, when we say we should treat the
environment as an end in itself, it means we should value and protect it for its own sake, not just
because it helps us make money or meet our needs.

When we prioritize environmental preservation, we're essentially saying that we care about the
environment and its well-being, not just about how it can benefit us economically. This idea
respects the dignity of the environment and all the living things within it. It's like saying that the
environment has value and worth on its own, separate from any benefits it might provide us.

By universalizing this idea, we're saying that everyone should treat the environment this way, not
just some people or groups. This means that, according to Kant, it's not just a personal choice or
preference, but a moral duty for everyone to respect and protect the environment.

So, in simpler terms, when we prioritize environmental preservation and treat the environment as
an end in itself, we're showing respect for the environment and all the creatures living in it, now
and in the future.
Thomistic Philosophy and Environmental Responsibility: Presenter: "Now, let's turn to
Thomistic philosophy, particularly Thomas Aquinas's emphasis on societal harmony. Aquinas
suggests that neglecting the environment could disrupt societal harmony, leading to disasters like
flooding or famines. So, what are our moral responsibilities towards the environment based on
Aquinas's ideas? How can we apply his principles to address contemporary environmental
challenges?"

 Answer: Our moral responsibilities towards the environment include preserving it for the
well-being of current and future generations. We can apply Aquinas's principles by
recognizing the interconnectedness of environmental health and societal harmony and
taking actions to prevent environmental degradation. Aquinas's emphasis on the common
good suggests that environmental stewardship is essential for maintaining a harmonious
society. By stewarding the environment responsibly, we ensure the flourishing of all
members of society, both human and non-human.

Aquinas viewed societal harmony as dependent on a harmonious relationship between humanity

and the natural world. When humans exploit or neglect the environment, they upset this balance,
which can result in societal unrest and suffering. Flooding and famines are examples of natural
disasters that can occur when environmental degradation reaches critical levels, impacting not
only the natural world but also human communities that rely on ecosystem services for their
survival.

In summary, Aquinas's perspective emphasizes the interconnectedness of environmental health

and societal well-being. Neglecting the environment can disrupt this delicate balance, leading to
adverse consequences for both the natural world and human societies. Therefore, he advocates
for responsible stewardship of the environment as essential for maintaining societal harmony and
promoting the common good.

Aristotle's Virtue Ethics and Myopia: Presenter: "Lastly, let's explore Aristotle's virtue ethics
and the concept of myopia, which refers to a lack of foresight. Aristotle argues that cultivating
virtues like foresight and environmental stewardship are essential for becoming better
individuals. So, how does the vice of myopia relate to environmental decision-making? What
virtues does Aristotle suggest are necessary for addressing environmental challenges?"

 Answer: The vice of myopia relates to environmental decision-making by hindering our

ability to consider the long-term consequences of our actions. Virtues like foresight,
environmental stewardship, and prudence are necessary for addressing environmental
challenges because they enable us to make decisions that promote the well-being of both
present and future generations. Aristotle's concept of eudaimonia, or human flourishing,
involves living virtuously in accordance with reason. This includes considering the
broader implications of our actions and prioritizing the long-term health of the
environment over short-term gains. In summary, Aristotle's virtue ethics offers valuable
insights into environmental decision-making by highlighting the importance of foresight and
virtuous character traits. By embracing virtues that prioritize the long-term health of the
environment over short-term gains, individuals can contribute to a more sustainable and
flourishing society for generations to come.
Synthesis and Conclusion: "To sum up ethical theories that have been discussed. Each of them
offers valuable insights into environmental ethics, emphasizing the importance of moral
responsibility and foresight. By integrating these perspectives, we can navigate complex
environmental issues more effectively.

Closing Remarks: Remember, environmental stewardship is not just a theoretical concept; it's
something we can actively practice in our daily lives.

Utilitarianism is a theory of morality that advocates actions that foster happiness or pleasure and
oppose actions that cause unhappiness or harm. When directed toward making social, economic, or
political decisions, a utilitarian philosophy would aim for the betterment of society as a whole.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is a form
of consequentialism. Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the
greatest good for the greatest number.
 What we have tried to show there is this current section is possibility: that classical ethical
theories contribute to potentially solve twenty-first century problems. The important point here is
not to “force answers” but to be open to real possibilities, as well as accepting real dead-ends. One
must see the value of testing one’s hypotheses, but also of the virtue of accepting that some
hypotheses need to be let go.

A CLOSING THAT IS REALLY AN OPENING

At the end of this introduction to the ethical study, we should already have a more or less
clear idea of how to make informed moral decisions. You should, at this point, have the sufficient
mental affective equipment to arrive at sound judgements for cases in discussion or for enacting
real-life decisions. The four classical ethical theories or frameworks that we have taken up are in no
way exhaustive. There are many other theories especially in the twentieth century that emerged to
take up the questions “What ought I to do?” and “Why ought I to do it?” These four frameworks
however, have proven to be some of the most influential in human thought and should serve as an
introduction to other theories or to further discussions on moral philosophy. They are not to be
seen as options to dictate on what one is supposed to do in a particular situation. This is the cynical
way these frameworks are sometimes employed: use them as needed to justify what one wants to
do in a particular situation. The more productive use of these frameworks instead is to employ them
as beginning guides to one’s further exploration into the topic of morality. Test them out: identify
their strengths, recognize their weak points, stretch them out to see up to where they can work, and
think of what can be added to the parts where they do not work anymore.

In the end, there is only a beginning: We do not have a computer program here that can
automatically calculate what is right to do in a given situation. It seems safe to assume that there
can never be such thing. There is only the human individual along with her community of fellow
human beings who need to accept that they must continue to explore the meaning of what is good
and right while hoping to arrive at the best judgements they can make at this point in time.
Realizing the finitude of human understanding and of the capacity to make choices, but at the same
time hoping that one’s best attempt at doing what is right does mean something in the end—these
are part and parcel of making informed moral decisions (Do not worry, you can do it!).
SUMMARY
Making informed decisions in the realm of morality entails first understanding who one is, in order
to account for reasons that one comes up with as the agent who must choose in a moral situation.
Reyes explains that one’s self is a cross-point of many forces and factors that shape one’s choices
but do not dictate upon them. The mature moral agent must understand how her society, history,
culture, and even religion shape who she is. She must also realize though that her choices in the end
cannot simply be a mere product of these outside forces, but must be made in the spirit of freedom.
Kohlberg teaches that one’s realization of her own freedom to determine her own moral principles,
free from all conventions, happened in a process of maturity. An essential element in maturity is the
realization that one’s choices, even in the realm of ethics, cannot simply be a function of rational
thought but are inevitably shaped also by the feelings. Thus, there is the additional responsibility of
cultivating one’s feelings as well as one’s reason. The moral agent must be mature enough to be able
to cultivate the necessary steps to ensure a sound, well informed moral decision. With the aid of the
different ethical theories or frameworks discussed in the previous chapters, the morally mature
agent will be able to appreciate her responsibility toward herself, her society, and her environment.