Elliot Sober's article Philosophical Problems for Environmentalism examines the traditional theories of ethics; in evaluating these theories, Sober seeks to reveal the weakness imbedded in them. He argues that the main problem for environmentalism stems from its effort to ascribe value to nature beyond nature's known instrumental worth. In place of the traditional environmental theories, therefore, Sober proposes a different approach - an ascription of value based on aesthetics.
First, Sober accuses environmentalists of engaging in the ignorance argument. According to him, the ignorance argument is used by environmentalists as a justification for preserving species and protecting the ecosystem. Sober sums up the argument thus: "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 a future use." He proceeds to reject this claim simply on the reason that if we don't know anything about the value of particular species, then we are incapable of advancing any rationale for preserving them. Using the analogy of airplanes, he argues that humans are accustomed to accepting a small chance of a greater disaster in return for the high probability of a rather modest benefit." Again, he contends that since we are ignorant about the potential value of the species, we are equally ignorant of their potential harmful effect. Third, he reasons that were the environmentalists to argue that the species are vital for the sustenance of the ecosystem, even that argument would be untenable because science has shown that some species are so insignificant to the sustainability of our ecosystem that they are dispensable.
The second argument examined by Sober is the slippery slope argument. Slippery slope is a tricky precarious situation, especially one that leads gradually but inexorably to disaster. The slippery slope here is in respect of where to draw the line regarding the importance of species. Sober is of the opinion that each species matters only a little. But the environmentalists are afraid of conceding to that fact because if they did they would open up the floodgate to the gradual extinction of all species, one that they may be unable to stop once it gets started. But Sober thinks environmentalists do not have to draw a line. He claims that the importance of species could be successfully advanced on the basis of diversity, that if value is placed on diversity, then the value of each species would increase as the overall diversity declines.
Third, Sober considers the appeal to what is natural. Under this argument, Sober explores the concept and definition of the word "natural." He notes that at the core of this debate sits a major disagreement between environmentalists and animal liberationists. Are houses (like anthills) natural components of the environment? Since humans are part of nature, Sober thinks it is a logical deduction to conclude that "everything we do" is part of nature, including the houses we build and the animals we domesticate. Although animal liberationists think that domesticated animals merit ethical consideration, environmentalists disagree. Environmentalists claim that since domesticated animals are products of human creation, they are, as a consequence, "artificial" beings. Sober thus conclude that the old theories of development, which environmentalists still rely on in making their assertions about "natural state" and the "interfering force," are no longer useful. He therefore urges a search for new norms that would better articulate the concept of what is "natural."
As an alternative to the environmental theories he condemns, Sober proposes a new approach, one that focuses on the aesthetic value of nature. He said the path toward ascribing value to nature is often fraught with the difficulty of drawing a line between what is "natural" and what is "artificial," and that if we could determine such value based on aesthetics, this difficulty would be avoided. Comparing nature to a piece of art, he claims that it is the rarity and originality of a species that ultimately determines its value. Sober is certain that if value in nature is based on aesthetics, the problem with the ignorance argument may also be resolved by avoiding the difficulty of proving that a particular species may in future prove useful.
Sober's approach is itself fraught with difficulty. Although aesthetics could be used to ascribe value to organisms, it is not a panacea. Neither does it appropriately resolve the flaws Sober picks with the other theories. If we were to ascribe value to nature solely by means of aesthetics, where do we draw the line on what is beautiful and what isn't? If we say the zebra is beautiful and should be preserved, what grounds might we advance in excluding the mosquito? This, no doubt, would lead us down the same slippery slope Sober acknowledges in the other arguments.
Aesthetics is largely based on the subjective mind. If nature, like art, is valuable only when one can evaluate and appreciate it, then it is a subjective test. If it is subjective, then not everyone may have the same view about its "value." The same is true of art. When discussing the appeal to nature, Sober asks, "Why do environmentalists discriminate between domesticated animals and those in the wild?" A method that values nature solely by reason of aesthetics will lead many to ask, "Why does the animal liberationist discriminate between the penguin and the cockroach?" Sadly, we would be confronted with similar questions and fewer answers.
First, Sober accuses environmentalists of engaging in the ignorance argument. According to him, the ignorance argument is used by environmentalists as a justification for preserving species and protecting the ecosystem. Sober sums up the argument thus: "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 a future use." He proceeds to reject this claim simply on the reason that if we don't know anything about the value of particular species, then we are incapable of advancing any rationale for preserving them. Using the analogy of airplanes, he argues that humans are accustomed to accepting a small chance of a greater disaster in return for the high probability of a rather modest benefit." Again, he contends that since we are ignorant about the potential value of the species, we are equally ignorant of their potential harmful effect. Third, he reasons that were the environmentalists to argue that the species are vital for the sustenance of the ecosystem, even that argument would be untenable because science has shown that some species are so insignificant to the sustainability of our ecosystem that they are dispensable.
The second argument examined by Sober is the slippery slope argument. Slippery slope is a tricky precarious situation, especially one that leads gradually but inexorably to disaster. The slippery slope here is in respect of where to draw the line regarding the importance of species. Sober is of the opinion that each species matters only a little. But the environmentalists are afraid of conceding to that fact because if they did they would open up the floodgate to the gradual extinction of all species, one that they may be unable to stop once it gets started. But Sober thinks environmentalists do not have to draw a line. He claims that the importance of species could be successfully advanced on the basis of diversity, that if value is placed on diversity, then the value of each species would increase as the overall diversity declines.
Third, Sober considers the appeal to what is natural. Under this argument, Sober explores the concept and definition of the word "natural." He notes that at the core of this debate sits a major disagreement between environmentalists and animal liberationists. Are houses (like anthills) natural components of the environment? Since humans are part of nature, Sober thinks it is a logical deduction to conclude that "everything we do" is part of nature, including the houses we build and the animals we domesticate. Although animal liberationists think that domesticated animals merit ethical consideration, environmentalists disagree. Environmentalists claim that since domesticated animals are products of human creation, they are, as a consequence, "artificial" beings. Sober thus conclude that the old theories of development, which environmentalists still rely on in making their assertions about "natural state" and the "interfering force," are no longer useful. He therefore urges a search for new norms that would better articulate the concept of what is "natural."
As an alternative to the environmental theories he condemns, Sober proposes a new approach, one that focuses on the aesthetic value of nature. He said the path toward ascribing value to nature is often fraught with the difficulty of drawing a line between what is "natural" and what is "artificial," and that if we could determine such value based on aesthetics, this difficulty would be avoided. Comparing nature to a piece of art, he claims that it is the rarity and originality of a species that ultimately determines its value. Sober is certain that if value in nature is based on aesthetics, the problem with the ignorance argument may also be resolved by avoiding the difficulty of proving that a particular species may in future prove useful.
Sober's approach is itself fraught with difficulty. Although aesthetics could be used to ascribe value to organisms, it is not a panacea. Neither does it appropriately resolve the flaws Sober picks with the other theories. If we were to ascribe value to nature solely by means of aesthetics, where do we draw the line on what is beautiful and what isn't? If we say the zebra is beautiful and should be preserved, what grounds might we advance in excluding the mosquito? This, no doubt, would lead us down the same slippery slope Sober acknowledges in the other arguments.
Aesthetics is largely based on the subjective mind. If nature, like art, is valuable only when one can evaluate and appreciate it, then it is a subjective test. If it is subjective, then not everyone may have the same view about its "value." The same is true of art. When discussing the appeal to nature, Sober asks, "Why do environmentalists discriminate between domesticated animals and those in the wild?" A method that values nature solely by reason of aesthetics will lead many to ask, "Why does the animal liberationist discriminate between the penguin and the cockroach?" Sadly, we would be confronted with similar questions and fewer answers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are welcome.