Philosophical

Problems for
Environmentalism
CHAPTER 37
 Elliott Sober
Elliott R. Sober (born 6 June 1948) is Hans Reichenbach Professor and
William F. Vilas Research Professor in the Department of Philosophy
at University of Wisconsin-Madison. Sober is noted for his work in philosophy
of biology and general philosophy of science.

Academic career
Sober earned his Ph.D. in philosophy from Harvard University. Sober has
served as the president of both the Central Division of the American
Philosophical Association and the Philosophy of Science Association. He was
president of the International Union of History And Philosophy of Science
(Division of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science) from 2012 until
2015. He taught for one year Stanford University and has been a regular
visiting professor at the London School of Economics. Since 2013, Sober has
been listed on the Advisory Council of the National Center of Science
Education.
I. Introduction
A number of philosophers have recognized that the environmental movement, whatever its practical
political effectiveness, faces considerable theoretical difficulties in justification. It has been recognized that
traditional moral theories do not provide natural underpinnings for policy objectives and this has led some
to skepticism about the claims of environmentalists, and others to the view that a revolutionary
reassessment of ethical norms is needed.

The problem for environmentalism stems from the idea that species and ecosystems ought to be preserved
for reasons additional to their known value as resources for human use. The feeling is that even when we
cannot say what nutritional, medicinal, or recreational benefit the preservation provides, there still is a
value in preservation. It is the search for this feeling that constitutes the main conceptual problem for
environmentalism.
The problem is especially difficult in view of the holistic (as opposed to individualistic) character of the
things being assigned value. Put simply, what is special about environmentalism is that it values the
preservation of species, communities, or ecosystems, rather than the individual organisms of which they
are composed. “Animal liberationist” have urged that we should take the suffering of sentient animals
into account in ethical deliberation.

Animal liberationists are extending an old and familiar ethical doctrine-namely, utilitarianism-to take
account of the welfare of other individuals. Although the practical consequences of this point of view
may be revolutionary, the theoretical perspective is not at all novel. If suffering is bad, then it is bad for
any individual who suffers. Animal liberationists merely remind us of the consequences of familiar
principles.

Both animal liberationist and environmentalists wish to broaden our ethical horizons to make us realize
that it is not just human welfare that counts. But they do this in very different, often conflicting, ways. It
is no accident that at the level of practical politics the two points of view increasingly find themselves at
loggerheads. This practical conflict is the expression of a deep theoretical divide.
 THE
Ignorance
Argument
“Although we might not now
know what use a particular
endangered species might be to
us, allowing it to go extinct
forever closes off the possibility
of discovering and exploiting
future use”
IGNORANCE ARGUMENT

01 02
First point Second point
Ignorance of value is turned into a Something is true until it was
reason for action. proven false or vice versa.

03 04
Third point Fourth point
Out of nothing, nothing comes. CONSEQUENCES?
 THE
Slippery Slope
Argument
 WHAT IS SLIPPERY SLOPE
ARGUMENT
01 02 03
Slippery slopes are Something is something,
often describe as things Often misunderstood as no matter how much it
that once you step into, a line that should not be affects
there’s no going back. crossed. SOMETHING.
APPEALS TO WHAT IS NATURAL PRESENTED BY : MARK FERRRARI OBLEPIAS

 TO PRESERVE WHAT IS NATURAL.

 APPLIED HEDONISTIC UTILITARIANISM.
 ENVIRONMENTALISTS SHOULD LOOK ELSEWHERE FOR A DEFENSE OF
THEIR POLICIES.

APPEALS TO NEEDS AND

INTERESTS
 IDENTIFY NEEDS AND WANTS TO DEFINE THEIR NATURAL
STATES.
 APPLIED PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM.
 WE HUMAN BEINGS MEDDLE WITH THAT NATURAL STATES.
 GOING GREEN SERIES PT 3
Granting
Wholes
Autonom ous
Value
Presented by: Rohan Loto 01
 G OI NG G RE E N SE R IE S PT 3
A number of environmentalists have asserted
that environmental values cannot be
grounded in values based on regard for
individual welfare.

We have a view that is just as monolithic as

most single - minded individualism ; the
difference is that the unit of value is thought
to exist at a higher level of organization.

In ethics, as in any other subject, rationally

persuading another person requires the
existence of shared assumptions.
05
The Demarcation
Problem
CHAPTER 37
Problem of Demarcation
The most fundamental theoretical problem confronting an environmentalist who wishes to claim
that species and ecosystems have autonomous value.

- Every ethical theory must provide principles that describe which objects matter for their own
sakes and which do not.
- An ethical theory must say why the properties named, rather than others, are one that count.
- Hedonistic Utilitarianism ( wants, or interest )
- Kantian ethical theory ( rational reflection and autonomy )
Problem of Demarcation
- Use of the distinction between “natural” and “artificial”

Mountain Made of Rock Created by natural

processes
Highway Made of Rock Humanly constructed

- artifacts produced by conscious planning are thereby “less” valuable than one that arise
without the intervention of mentality

Issue of context
Environmentalist concerns and aesthetic value
- Environmentalists often stress the importance of preserving endangered species
were preserved by putting a number of specimens in a zoo or in a humanly constructed
preserve. What is taken to be important is preserving the species in its natural habitat.
- Value in rarity.
Problem of Demarcation

Environmentalist concerns and aesthetic value

What is valuable in the aesthetic case is always the relation of a valuer to a valued
object.

Natural objects are more valuable than works of art(Humanly constructed).

But, if the environmental values are aesthetic, no demarcation need be discovered.