Can we ground a successful environmental ethic by taking biodiversity as intrinsically valuable?
Introduction
Environmental ethic is a field of study concerned with the moral relationships of human beings to and also the value and moral status of the environment and its non-human components (Brennan and Lo 2020). According to philosophers, human beings are a vital part of the environment, the same as the other living creatures, including plants and animals. However, for an extended period, human beings have disregarded the intrinsic value for biodiversity and concentrated on the instrumental value for that when they do not feel the need for a particular ecosystem, they destroy it. Many have considered sustainability in terms of the significant amount of natural resources and biological resources in the environment (Brennan and Lo 2020).
Nonetheless, people must consider the efficient use of resources to ensure biodiversity is sustained through generations for the good of the ecosystem’s diversity. .This study will discuss the problems or challenges of environmental ethics according to philosophy and whether taking biodiversity as intrinsically valuable can help in establishing a robust ecological ethic.
Challenges of Environmental Ethics
The field of environmental ethics has several challenges, as posed by philosophers. The primary problem in protecting and improving biodiversity is human disregard for the intrinsic value of biodiversity. Many questions are raised regarding the regard and disregard for the inherent value for biodiversity. For instance, can human beings put out natural fires, culling feral animals or destroy individual members of the overpopulated species to protect the integrity of another ecosystem? Or just simply put; is it morally acceptable for farmers to apply techniques such as slash and burn to clear land for agriculture? Besides, think of a mining company that performs open-pit mining in formerly damaged place. Does the firm have a moral duty to reclaim the landform and surface ecology? If so, what is the value of a humanly reclaimed environment compared to the naturally restored environment or the originally natural environment?
Furthermore, many people claim that it is morally and ethically wrong for human beings to pollute and destroy part of the environment as well as consuming a considerable portion of the natural resources. Is it because the other contents, especially non-human components, are essential for their assigned intrinsic value or instrumental value? Or is it because human beings care for their future generations? It is because every element of the environment has an absolute value that deserves respected and protection against depreciation and ageing?
Conclusively, these are some of the questions that environmental ethics examines. Some items are specific to a particular group of human beings or individuals circumstances, while others are global moral questions that many groups and communities across the globe face. However, some questions are abstract and concern the value and ethical perspective of the natural environment and the related non-human contents.
In the study of the moral relations between humans and non-human components in the environment, every element is assigned either intrinsic or instrumental value. Intrinsic value concerns the number of things as ends in them, while the instrumental value is the value of things as the means to an end (Brennan and Lo 2020). For instance, a person may value a washing machine for its useful function –instrumental value. If another person brought you cheaper and more effective services that picked and dropped off your laundry, you would probably sell your washing machine because you found another means to an end. It no longer has instrumental value to you. To also understand the instrumental value in environmental ethics, money can be a better example. People value money as a mean to an end. Money provides security and can purchase goods and services. Money loses its value and becomes another piece of printed paper or a scrap metal Detached from the purchasing power and storage of value. Therefore, attaching instrumental value on non-human contents of the environment is creating a mean to an end using the components.
On the other hand, intrinsic value the presence of such things makes the universe a better place. John Stuart Mill, a utilitarian philosopher argues that things such as pleasure and happiness are valuable in and of themselves. In other words, a world with a single sentient being experiences pleasure and is better than that which there are no sentient beings. The world is a more valuable place. Besides, Immanuel Kant argues that moral actions are intrinsically valuable. According to Kant, a universe in which rational people do right steps from a sense of duty is inherently a better place than a world in which people don’t rationally perform virtuous actions (Hill J.R. 2006). Implicitly, adherence to ethical and moral standards makes the world a better place. G.E Moore, the Cambridge philosopher, claims that beauty in the universe makes it a better place than there wasn’t better. In all the instances above, all the things mentioned are valuable intrinsically (Hill J.R. 2006).
However, some philosophers would argue that intrinsically valuable things cannot be worthwhile unless valued by people (Hayward 1997). For instance, happiness can be valuable unless people value happiness. People value things such as wealth, money, employment, educations, political governance, houses, among other material possessions because they believe such things would bring them pleasure and happiness. Should there be another package of happiness and pleasure besides material possessions and education, people would not need them. For instance, asking someone why they want to possess wealth and riches, education, house, car, among other things makes sense. Yet, asking why they want to be happy may not make sense.
Intrinsic Value for Biodiversity
Having looked at the challenges of environmental ethics and the meaning of intrinsic and instrumental value attached to non-human components in the environment, can we say that biodiversity as intrinsically valuable can promote strong ecological ethics? To answer the question, we must consider first how intrinsically valuable is biodiversity. And if so, is biodiversity inherently expensive and worth of protection regardless of the instrumental value it may or may not have for human beings?
One fact to acknowledge is that human beings value a variety of things. A world with homogenous value would seem boring to human species. Simply put, people just like having more of the same things they love. For instance, people prefer a collection of diversified goods to a group of similar products. Suppose the two packages of both similar and diversified goods can sustain through a period and culture to be experienced by another future generation.
Implicitly, people would if one starts with the biocentric moral outlook that every life form is intrinsically valuable. It will be natural as well as correct for one to accept the further proposition that biodiversity – that is, the diversity in biological forms of life – is also something intrinsically valuable (Colyvan, Justus and Regan 2010). In other words, life is a good thing. If the universe with good things of a different kind is better than the world with good things of fewer or the same type, then the universe with higher biodiversity is better than lower biodiversity.
Moreover, in the ethics of biodiversity, is every living creature, regardless of the species intrinsically valuable? The question is critical in biodiversity ethics. In his argument for the core thesis for biocentrism, Taylor claims that every living creature is inherently valuable because each has its interests and it is capable of bourgeoning. Fundamentally, if a non-human living being can fare better or worse, then it is morally better for the creature to fare better rather than worse. There are questions concerning the moral relevance of biological interests. For instance, is there a reason to respect the natural interests of a tapeworm? Or fancifully, can one appreciate the biological interest of creatures in sci-fi movies such as Aliens? The best way to answer such philosophical questions is to understand why human species are more important than species in the universe.
According to traditional arguments, intrinsic value is assigned to creatures of higher degree, if not exclusively, to humans who have a standard structure (McShane 2007). For instance, human beings have traits such as self-consciousness, reasonableness, the language capacities, for the moral decision, aesthetic creation and appreciation, and many other abilities and skills that are considered as laudable or otherwise worthy, traits which no other life form on Earth has, or has to nearly such a great extent that humans have them. Primarily, since the characteristics are most valuable and morally relevant, creatures that possess them are considered most valuable than those with none.
However, the comparison of the moral worth of different species does not start on a neutral ground. Instead, the comparison begins with the set of traits that a single species that is human beings possess. Arguments have identified and assumed characteristics that are among their species. This has become the basis for the lack of respect for the other biological species. Comparison for moral worth of species should be based on neutral standards upon which either a species meets or does not meet, lest we lose the sense of the moral quality of biodiversity.
Suppose we drop the issue of human superiority, objective comparison can be achieved by using members of the same species and comparing their skills, capacities, and techniques for surviving. For instance, it would make sense to compare antelopes one to another and establishing whether they all have the same ability and skills, or they vary in the same key indicators. In such comparisons, it would be easy to find out that one antelope is better in detecting danger than the other or a lion is better in catching prey than the other.
Contrarily, it would not make any sense to ask whether a bird which is good at flying is better than fish which is good at swimming. Although the instrumental value of living creatures results in unfair comparisons, human beings should learn to distinguish the intrinsic value of an organism from the instrumental value and see to it that the creatures are treated with the respect they deserve in the ecosystem.
Notably, intrinsic value emphasizes the integrity of ecosystems and natural functioning of living creatures. Although man could be preserving biodiversity for the instrumental benefit, the preservation indicates that biodiversity is intrinsically valuable. Without man, the creatures would still live to their happiness (exampled of national reserves and game parks). Instead of using funny criteria to compare species, human beings, especially philosophers and researchers, should focus on considering that all life forms have intrinsic value and should be respected and protected. The ethical and moral argument that all life forms should be protected is based on the fact that human activities and disturbances cause the most loss of biodiversity.
It is also important to note that all life has inherent worth. Implicitly, every species has a value and a role in nature. Since all life has the same source, every creature has a right to exist within the ecosystem, regardless of its instrumental value. When all life forms are considered an essential part of the ecosystem, each species will lives peacefully as they interdepend upon each other for survival.
According to the philosophical study of environmental ethics, ecosystems have intrinsic value because they provide emotional and aesthetic experiences (Kopnina et al. 2018). In other words, nature values such as living creatures for their beauty, complexity, wilderness, and wondrousness. They have spiritual significance and diverse. Besides, ecosystems regulate the climate, recycle nutrients and provide food for every species. They provide a foundation for the building of human society. In other words, they have subjective intrinsic value.
The instrumental value of biodiversity should be a wakeup to human beings to examine the intrinsic value of biodiversity. For instance, if destruction of one species may lead to the loss of another, would it not be better appreciate the right of every creature in coexisting in the ecosystem for their interests? For instance, if destroying pollinators would lead to loss of some plant species, it is better to conserve the diversity of pollinators and sustain natural ecosystems to preserve the quality of life for humans and all other species on the planet.
The other reason to understand the intrinsic value of living creatures and ecosystems is their independence from human design and control. If plants are left alone, they would still grow and reproduce, and this is the same to animals. They do not require human knowledge and control to design their reproduction. Their independent growth indicates that they have intrinsic value, which Soulé appeals to in his postulate: “Species have value in themselves, a value neither conferred nor revocable, but springing from a species’ long evolutionary heritage and potential” (Brennan and Lo 2020.)
Moreover, anthropocentric values f biodiversity rely upon the relationship of human beings to ecosystems. In other words, the products that biodiversity yield for man use. Such products include food, wood, fibres, resins, genes and knowledge. These benefits are accessible to quantify in market values. Other indirect benefits are difficult to quantify in terms of market value. As earlier mentioned, they include regulation of the global climate, recycling of nutrients such as nitrogen and sulfur and making them readily available for plant absorption. Similarly, ecosystem services are the indirect benefits that human beings receive from natural ecosystems functions.
Biodiversity value can also be viewed in terms of aesthetic value. Human beings make contact with the environment, natural environment to enjoy their aesthetically pleasing nature. Often, people move from cities dominated by pollution and humanmade buildings and structures to remote areas where they can enjoy the beauty of nature. This is visible in national parks, game reserves, mountains, and other natural attraction sites. Presently, ecotourism has become an increasingly lucrative industry in the globe because of the aesthetic values of diversity. In other words, biodiversity has its existence role in the universe, which makes the world a better place to stay (Brennan and Lo 2020).
The value of biodiversity can also be measured in terms of mitigation and compensation values. Often, the conservation of biodiversity concerns different aspects of human growth and development. For instance, preservation of the biodiversity results from the fear of the environmental impact on the social and economic development of human society. As a result, human beings protect and conserve the ecological components proactively to reduce their impact by implementing mitigate and compensate for the effects of social activities on the environment (Hill Jr 2006).
Importantly, Biodiversity loss will become evident if the current predatory and unregulated trend in exploiting existing natural resources. Notably, biodiversity has value for science. The value transcends subjective arguments. Scientific studies on biodiversity are essential in accomplishing the objectives if gaining knowledge on the magnitude of biodiversity, scientific collections for taxonomy references and species distribution among another precious theme of study in the field (Kopnina 2018). In other words, the experimental value for biodiversity arouses desires for increasing knowledge and scientific examinations in ecology and using such knowledge to establish innovations in biotechnology.
It is, however, unfortunate that biodiversity loss is threatening the idea of a sustainable society. The damage is occurring in terms of species, genes, and ecosystems. Explicitly, a gap exists between the human desire for economic progress and nature’s carrying capacity for biological exploitation and degradation. It is essential to acknowledge that biodiversity has political value too, and our care and protection of it will grow our political aspects as communities, regions and the world.
With such a significant number of evidence for the intrinsic value for biodiversity, it is essential to preserve the natural ecosystems to ensure that all forms of life coexist for a better universe. Every species has its benefits and purpose for which it is created to exist. The species have specific interest and rights to exist in the ecosystem and blend nature into aesthetic and anthropocentric value for both humans and other living creations. Although traditionally, we have learned to preserve biological creatures that have instrumental value for us, we should learn that even for intrinsic value without any benefit to human beings, we should have interest and obligation preserve biodiversity for other transformative values in the universe.
In conclusion, it is possible (though very difficult) to ground strong environmental ethics by taking biodiversity as intrinsically valuable. The evidence from the above discussion indicates that human beings lay a foundation for ecological ethics by focusing on the value of biodiversity, which directly and indirectly affects their socio-economic and cultural settings. The value may be anthropocentric, market value, political, cultural or even scientific for collecting knowledge and investigations for biotechnology innovations.
The problem in environmentalism as earlier mentioned is that ecosystems are only preserved for the additional value attached to their intrinsic value which mostly may not be known. If we do not see the value of a species, we may not be concerned with its preservation. However, it should be understood that even when the medicinal, nutritional, or recreational value of a species is not known, the species should still be preserved.
Preserving biodiversity purely for intrinsic value is difficult. People also look at the time invested and perhaps other resources used to protect biodiversity, and if no returns yielded, then the exercise may as well be dropped. For species such as dinosaurs which are said to be extinct, human activities must have contributed highly to the loss of the specie. If effort and resources were invested, the species would be part of the ecotourism due to its aesthetic values. This is how difficult it is to achieve a successful environmental ethic by taking biodiversity as intrinsically valuable. The instrumental value must be attached to the species for it to be comprehensive and effectively preserved in its natural environment. Otherwise, human beings do not concentrate on the species full benefits and values in society are not recognized.
References
Brennan, A. and Lo, Y., 2020.”Environmental Ethics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/ethics-environmental/>.org
Colyvan, M., Justus, J. and Regan, H.M., 2010. ‘The natural environment is valuable but not infinitely valuable’ Conservation Letters (3): pp.224-228.
Hayward, T., 1997. Anthropocentrism: a misunderstood problem. Environmental Values, 6(1), pp.49-63
HILL JR, T.E., 2006. ‘Finding Value in Nature’, Environmental Values, 15(3), p. 331-341
Kopnina, H., Washington, H., Taylor, B. and Piccolo, J.J., 2018. Anthropocentrism: More than just a misunderstood problem. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31(1), pp.109-127
McShane, K., 2007. ‘Anthropocentrism vs Nonanthropocentrism: Why Should We Care?’, Environmental Values, 16(2), p. 169-185
Sarkar, S., 2005. ‘Tempered Anthropocentrism.’ In Biodiversity and Environmental Philosophy: An Introduction. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: pp. 75-105