Chapter One

General Introduction

Environmental ethics appears as a wing of practical or applied ethics. Its main

objective is to retain the balance of the environment or the sustainability of

environment as a whole. There are countless environments and the belief in a global

environment seems inescapable. Environment exists essentially because it is inhabited

by a particular living organism. Therefore, the field comprises ‘an infinity of

overlapping environments’.1Given this sense of environment, each human group and

individual has its own environment, and each forms part of the environment of many

of the others. Thus, ‘environment’ here actually means ‘encompassing system’.

‘Environment’ is also used to mean the sense of eco-system, i.e., a system of

interacting living organisms and non-living elements (biotic and abiotic communities

respectively). Since an ecosystem is usually thought of as occurring within a self-

contained and restricted area, and since complete isolation in the real sense of the

term in most general areas is impossible, it can be argued that the Earth itself is the

only real ecosystem. Thus, our understanding of environment is a single ecosystem.

We are talking in favor of an organic whole. Environments never exist before the

environed creature does, and cannot exist without such a creature. They comprise a

process rather than a fixed objective entity, and are continually under construction

through the activities of the living being environed. Hence, a distinction should be

made between environment and nature, and we should be wary of expressions such as

‘the natural environment’. In fact, nature is a world that can exist apart from us and it

can be studied in a detached, isolated and scientific manner. Environment is

1
Mellanby, Kenneth, ‘Environment’, in Alan Bullock and Oliver Stalybrass (eds.), The Fontana
Dictionary of Modern Thought, p.207.

1
fundamentally historical and it cannot be understood through scientific detachment.

All kinds of distortions arise for ethics when the environment is conceived as the pre-

constituted base of human action. We have pre-ethical commitments towards the

environment. Our pre-ethical commitments or engagement with our surroundings

ends with this being described as a condition ‘by virtue of which we are all fellow

passengers on this planet of ours’.2We have both intentional (perspective-dependent)

and also objective concepts of environment. Objective concepts include the concept of

the environment as an objective system of causes and effects. This concept is, of

course, a relational concept but the relation is different and can be quite independent

of awareness and understanding on the part of an environed subject. However, an

object of understating, a causal or objective environment or its components may be

recognized as the bearers of value, whether intrinsically or otherwise. Such an

environment will usually be the shared environment of many people and other

creatures. Thus, it comprises an interpersonal environment. A conscious subject may

have thus an environment in at least two senses. We can employ both the intentional

sense and the interpersonal sense. Even, we can shift between these senses because

intentional and interpersonal spheres interrupt on one another too much for things to

be otherwise. Accordingly, if pollution threatens our favorite places, we appeal for

environmental preservation. We cannot ignore or set aside the fate of our future

generations, our children and our grandchildren’s legacy.

The most notable perception of the twentieth century is that a single species, i.e.,

humanity, has become the creator of its own destiny. With the advent of science and

technology, humans possess the ability to change the environment of Planet Earth.

2
Ingold, Tim, ‘Beyond Anthropocentrism and Eco-centrism’, unpublished presentation to a Workshop
on ‘Ethics, Economics and Environmental Management’ of the Swedish Collegium for Advanced
Study in the Social Sciences, Uppsala, 1995, p.17.

2
From its genesis or origin the earth’s climate has undergone successive upheavals and

extinctions. Ice and Fire have sculpted the shape of the planet from age to age as

mountains have risen from the deep and continents have sunk to the ocean floor. This

struggle of life and death is illustrated by the demise of the great dinosaurs during the

Cretaceous period. Such catastrophic event was deemed to be caused by some radical

shift in the environment. Very similar to that, waves of extinction are breaking out all

over the globe at this very time. Twentieth century Homo sapiens have become a

force of nature. Very similar to the sun, the moon, the wind and water, people

exercise a power over nature which can reduce it to the fate of the dinosaur.

Underdeveloped and developing countries are the main victims of environmental

problems. Affluent countries like America and the UK are more conscious about the

environment. Laws are very strict in these countries. People generally abide by laws.

This is not the same in the third world countries, like India, Bangladesh, etc. Despite

these laws, there is an environmental crisis in the United States arising out of the

dilemmas of prosperity. In his study of America during the mod-nineteenth century,

Alexis de Tocqueville observed, “Their ancestors gave them the love of equality and

of freedom: but God himself gave them the means of remaining equal and free by

placing them upon a boundless continent.”3 It is said that the natural abundance of this

country has made it a ‘promised land’ and helped to shape the national character of its

people at large. Even one of the former President of America once remarked that ‘the

breadth and variety and beauty of our land, the richness of our mines and soil and

forests and water, the favorable nature of our climate- all of these natural factors have

provided a setting in which the optimism, the ingenuity and drive of the American

3
Subbarao, S., Ethics of Ecology and Environment, Rajat Publications, New Delhi, 1987, p.2.

3
people thrive and grow and are rewarded.”4It would therefore be almost impossible

for the Americans to think that nature or environment would be polluted and its

‘alabaster cities’ be reduced to asphalt jungles. As we are heirs to the products of our

forefathers’ genius, our generation has also inherited the result of past carelessness.

The term ‘carelessness’ is a very unacceptable term associated with humans. It is a

defect which arises out of the strengths of society. It is the flaw of our civilization and

it eventually boils done to how we as humans perceive ourselves in relation to nature.

We have to share and respect other forms of life. Of course, our main purpose is not

to indulge in doom and gloom, but to go beyond mere survival to finding new ways of

bringing quality into our lives and restoring the balance of nature. We are in the

process of isolating ourselves in every passing day by in all accounts. This is

detrimental and a human disgrace. We are on the basis of our own deeds moving

towards a more complicated and complex environment where we find ourselves more

uncertain and intolerant. If we are to find out the single cause, it would have to be

technology, i.e., more succinctly our handling of technology. Technology is good, it is

the most single handed device through which civilization is made possible. However,

at the same time, misuse and mishandling of technology brings man to a catastrophic

stage where there we do not find any meaning in life whatsoever. The perception of

western culture is dualistic in nature. It uses technology from both a materialistic and

an individualistic point of view. Modern technology, of course, required a particular

ethos and ideology in which to take birth and flourish. Western philosophers actually

set the stage with a built in dualism between spirit and matter reaching back to Plato

to the modern West through to Descartes and Bacon. According to Bacon, physical

world is that of a machine and it is completely different from the mind. The

4
Ibid., p.3.

4
amalgamation of both physical and mental world is made possible through the

intervention of God. The sharp metaphysical line between humans and their

environment was continued even in the thinking of Berkeley, Kant, Hegel, and Sartre.

None of them conceived that the sub-human world or natural World to be considered

as a fundamental human concern. It was equally reflected in Western religion as well.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam teach that the universe is the creation of God, who has

given human beings a special status in creation. The book of Genesis5outlines the

position of humans in relation to the rest of creation. God said to them, “Be fruitful

and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have domination over the fish of the

sea and over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the

earth.”6 It is continued: “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is

upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit: you shall have them

for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to

everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given

every green plant for food.”7 This position reflects strong anthropocentrism where

everything is determined by man. Men are the representatives of the God. God

authorizes men to act on earth with His full permission. The Bible, in the Book of

Genesis says. “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you: and as I gave you

the green plants, I give you everything.”8

It thus reflects that the pattern of Western philosophy and religion engages to sharply

distinguish between humans and nature. They conceive nature from outside of the

knowledge of science. For them nature is nothing but the storehouse of useful

materials having use or instrumental value only. Nature, thus, is nothing more than a

5
Genesis 1:28-30.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid.

5
mere object. This attitude goes a long way toward explaining why Western culture has

dominated the field of science for more than four-hundred years. Western culture was

predisposed towards the utility of science and technology. As our strength is derived

from the fragmented mode of our knowledge and our action, we are relatively helpless

when we try to deal intelligently with such unities as a city or the quality of life. The

goal of science is knowledge and it is no longer associated with environmental crisis.

The crisis is a sort of creation created by man for fulfilling their insatiable desires. In

this regard, Max Ways says, “Although, its categories are not the same as those of

science, technology in its own way is also highly specialized directed towards

narrowly defined aims. As its power raises, technology’s ‘side effects,’ the

consequences lying outside its tunneled field of purpose, proliferate with disastrous

consequences to the environment- among others unintended victims.” 9Our position is

that technology is the central agent behind the destruction of the environment.

Technology compels men to change their attitude towards nature. Technology as such

is based on the principle of separation or differentiation. It has been progressed

through isolation, individuation, and fragmentation that have eventually been proven

as detrimental to the environment as a whole. The second danger is rooted in religion

as well. The root of the environmental crisis is found in religion. According to White,

‘what people do about ecology depends on what they think about themselves in

relation to things around them’. For White, human ecology or eco-philosophy is

deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and our destiny, i.e., in short, about

religion. The danger of this perception is that it makes religion the primary

conditioner of human interaction with the environment.

9
Subbarao, S., Ethics of Ecology and Environment, op. cit. p.7
.

6
Eco-philosophy deals with ecological problems. In the past many ecological problems

were created out of environmental problems. In the United States, when the worst

drought stalked the land from California to the Deep South, the grain harvest was

depleted by 31% and also killing thousands of cattle. The combined effects of heat

waves and lack of rain ignited forest fires. Beaches were fouled with garbage, raw

sewage, and medical wastes, showing the limited capacity of the ocean to absorb

pollution. Many other natural calamities like this were witnessed in many different

parts of the world. It is a fact that in every passing year, threats to the survival of

Planet Earth have increased at nothing less than mind-bogging and alarming rates.

The most problematic ecological problems or problematic areas are: biodiversity,

global warming, pollution, waste, overpopulation, and the nuclear epidemic.

The Problem of Biodiversity

The biodiversity of nature actually retains the beauty of the nature. Diversity is the

key to survival. It is often said that there is unity within diversity. The question of

unity does not bear any sense without diversity. This is indeed the hallmark of Indian

civilization and culture. Naturally variety is not just the spice of life, but its sum and

substance. It is said that complex beyond understanding and valuable beyond

measure; biological diversity is the total variety of life on earth. In the past humans

were hunters and gathers and their sustenance depended on biodiversity. However,

over the course of time, this dependence changed when society looked for its

livelihood, first to agriculture and then to industry. Now people have come to realize

that biological diversity is crucial for the environment which sustains life and

accordingly the conservation of biological diversity is being voiced everywhere.

Having said this, there is nothing wrong in claiming that biodiversity is vanishing at

an incalculable speed. In this regard, we can speak of the story of Eugene Linden and

7
what is happening in Brazil. Before Brazil’s great land rush, the emerald rain forests

of Rondonia State were an unspoiled showcase for the diversity of life. There was

hardly a break in the canopy of 22 feet tall trees and virtually every acre was alive

with the discourse of all kinds of insects, rids and monkeys. Then came the swarms of

settlers during 1970, slashing and burning huge swathes through the forest to create

roads, towns and fields. Of course, initially they came to enjoy a promised to land, but

in ground reality they merely produced a network of devastation. It seemed that unlike

in the past the soil that supported a rich rain forest, is not well suited to corn and other

crops. As a result of that, they are destroying an ecosystem and the millions of species

of plants and animals that live in it. It is revealed that an estimated 20 per cent of

forest in Rondonia is gone and if it will continues at present rates of destruction, it

will be totally wiped out within the 25 years. This is just one instance cited with

regard to a particular region of Brazil. We observe the same in India as well. There is

no question of doubt that India is a land of rich diversity. Nobody can deny it. Its

geographical location actually makes it ‘one of the world’s top twelve ‘mega diversity

nations’’. However, the subcontinent’s biodiversity is dangerously eroded because of

the impact of earlier British policy which ‘drastically reoriented the resource-use

pattern, largely exporting various commodities, such as, tea, teak and indigo outside

the locality. However, after independence this system of undervaluing biological

resources was taken to extremes and took some decisions in favor of natural

resources. The second cause for the erosion of biodiversity in India is the limited

attention paid to the quality of life among the rural and tribal peoples. In pre-British

India, vast areas were available to fulfil the biomass needs of the local people. Parts of

such lands were set aside as ‘sacred groves’ for total protection of biological

communities and even today a few of these systems are available in Mizoram.

8
However, most were deliberately and effectively destroyed by the British and as a

result of that lands became ‘no man’s lands’ abused by all but protected by none. This

situation was worsened even after independence and it has affected local tribal people

at large.

Biodiversity can be analyzed and comprehended in three different ways, such as, by

ecosystems, species and genetic diversity. Ecosystems are the communities in which

organisms live and move and have their being. They comprise forests, wetlands,

mangroves and reefs. Among these, tropical forests are of highest value. They cover

only seven percent of the earth’s surface but they are the habitat for 50 to 80 percent

of its species. Having said this, it is being reduced by deforestation. In India trees are

among the most important of natural resources, but this has not lessened the pace of

deforestation cross the line. In Punjab, the forest cover declined from 120, 000

hectares to 49, 000 hectares between 1972-1982. In Rajasthan, some three hundred

mines extract marble, limestone, soapstone, silica, bauxite, and granite. All these are

basic requirements for modern industrialization. We witness the same in other states

as well. Uttar Pradesh is high among the regions hardest hit by deforestation.

Human Ecology and Environment

What then is the meaning of the term ‘ecology’? The term ‘ecology’ comes from the

Greek word oikos (house). It is even viewed as a body of knowledge concerning the

economy of nature, illuminating its roots in economics and evolutionary theory.

Ecology is also called ‘human ecology’ in the sense that humans are the household

manager. Ernst Haeckel, defined ‘ecology as the study of all those complex

interrelations referred to by Darwin as the conditions of the struggle for existence’.

Ecologists thus like to look at the environment as an ecosystem of interlocking

9
relationships and exchanges that contribute the web of life. Ecosystem thus constitutes

an ecological community. Or in other words, communities and their abiotic

environments together constitute an ecosystem. Eco philosophy deals with ecosystem

and its aims and objectives towards restoring a viable environment. The various

ecosystems taken together constitute the ecosphere, the largest ecological unit.

According to sociologists, the most important ecological concepts are diversity and

reworking, evolution and expansion, carrying capacity and above all the balance of

nature. In the early Decades of twentieth century, American cities were passing

through a period of great turbulence and instability due to the adverse effects of rapid

industrialization and urbanization. The people in the urban world were involved in

fierce competition vying for snatching territory and survival. Human ecologists

started looking at the process of city development in terms of the process of

succession which indirectly involved orderly sequences of invasions and

displacements leading to a climax or equilibrium state. As a result of that, human

ecology becomes the ecology of space. Accordingly, urban characteristics are now

diffused throughout society. Human ecology is problematic because it concentrates

mainly on population, technological culture and non-material culture and fourthly,

natural resources of the habitat. Human ecology as the adaptive mechanism emerges

out of the interaction of the population, organization and the environment.

Organization is the adaptive form that enables a population to act as a unit. It

maintains the relations of interdependence to have a complete sustenance from the

environment.

The real irony of the relentless global expansion with the perception of human

ecology lies in the coexistence of extreme opulence and affluence of a few alongside

unadulterated poverty and misery of the majority of the home and abroad. It seems

10
that the large metropolitan centers provide a very poor quality of life. As a result of

that it has been asked what prospect this scale and level of complexity holds for the

future. It is now a proven matter that industrial and industrializing nations are more or

less facing the same devastating environmental problems of air, land, and water

pollution and environmental destruction. Due to excessive industrialization, lakes and

rivers are dying, water is contaminated and polluted and undrinkable. Chemical run-

off and sewage and underwater dumping creates serious groundwater contamination.

Lignite, the major source of energy, is responsible for the heavy concentration of

sulphur dioxide and dust in the air that has caused serious Respiratory problems and

additional health damage. As a result, environment and industrialization policies are

becoming an explosive mix. Experts feared that between twenty five thousand to

seventy five thousand people in Russia and Europe may die prematurely from cancer

and other reflects of the radiation fallout from Chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster.

A quarter to a third of the forests in Eastern Europe show signs of dying from air

pollution. Desertification now threatens a third of the earth’s land surface. As a result

of that, poverty, hunger, starvation, famine, and death are endemic throughout the

world People have created all sorts of environmental problems and when looking to

resolve them, they can do nothing. Here lies the relevance of environmental ecology.

Environmental Sociology and Human Ecology

Many would call for environmental sociology in view of the mounting concern about

fuel shortages, oil spills, nuclear power plant accidents, acid rain, dying lakes, urban

smog, famine and death in the Sahel, rain forest destruction and the like. Social

ecologists and scientists realize that over exploitation of the ecosystem may hamper

and destroy the basis of our planetary survival. Even many social environmentalists

blame the dominant social paradigm of industrial societies for the destruction of the

11
delicate balance among the components of the ecological complex. Many would say

that the anti-ecological world view of the dominant social paradigm is mainly

responsible for creating environmental imbalance. Our social paradigm is primarily

anthropocentric in nature. As a result of that it appeared anti-ecological. It is an

environment where social facts are evaluated by other social facts. An exaggerated

emphasis on culture, science and technology is the reason given by human ecologists

for achieving an exceptional human goal eventually leading to the illusion that

humans are distinct and exempt from the impact of others. In addition, they have

identified the important sub-field of the sociology of environmental issues. Under the

impact of the interlocking crisis of overpopulation, resource depletion, and

environmental degradation, issues of sustainability and survival have come to occupy

center stage. Corresponding to the main approaches of human ecology, three broad

positions may be identified for discussion, viz., the pro-growth, the neo-Malthusian,

and the political economy perspectives. Within the human ecological perspectives,

environmental problems are seen as arising either from the unplanned nature of

growth and expansionism, and its attendant externalities and common tragedies. To

restore ecological balance and environmental health, human ecologists place their

faith in value consensus, rational planning, systems theory, computer models,

economic growth, market mechanisms, technological fixes, sustainable development.

Ecological Balance

Eco-philosophy talks in favor of ecological balance. Ecological balance is a kind of

stability that is attained through counterposed forces. Ecological balance involves the

relations and interdependencies between living things, and their environments. It may

be conceived in a functional, structural or a dynamic sense. It may be a feature of eco-

system function. Having said this, ecological balance is subject to relativities of both

12
time and space. Opinions differ over the degree and kind of ecological balance that

characterizes the natural world. One view is that ecological balance is an inherent

feature of the natural world. Another view is that it is a contingent feature of the

natural world. A third view might be that, like the curate’s egg, it is balanced in part.

A fourth moderately skeptical view is that it is not a feature of the natural world at all,

although it might have been. A fifth, radically skeptical, view would be to question

whether it is even meaningful to ascribe balance to the natural world. Even further an

epistemological question has been raised about the natural world and the views of

natural world. According to the ancient history, the natural world is provisionally

ordered and such ordering is the work of a supernatural agency, rather than built into

the fabric of things. This position has been well supported by Buddhist and Taoist

philosophies. Such an ancient position was readily assimilated into the medieval

world view. The belief in a providential ecology, associated with natural theology,

experienced a revival in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Ecologists usually

discuss the issue of balance or near equivalents such as, stability and equilibrium in

connection with segments of the natural world identified as communities or

ecosystems. Is apparent stability real? What might account for it? It is natural to think

that relations between the constituent organisms will play a large part in determining

the structure, composition, and dynamics of a continuity.

During the middle part of the century, ecosystem theory was developed and

formalized. Nature was conceived as a series of hierarchically ordered ecosystems at

various stages of development. Distinguishing features of mature as opposed to

immature ecosystems were drawn up, such as greater stability, increased diversity,

and minimal loss of minerals and nutrients. Their existence served to reinforce the

conception of nature as systematic and to that extent balanced. The idea has been

13
given eloquent expression in J. Lovelock’s ‘Gaia’ hypothesis, which posits that the

plant itself is just a self-regulating system.

Ecology and Ethics

Eco-philosophy is an environmental theory which is directed towards extending

intrinsic value to all natural communities. In fact, the main contention of

environmental ethics is to ensure equal values to all natural communities, biotic as

well as abiotic. In anthropocentrism, it is claimed that only humans have intrinsic

value and other than humans all other natural communities have only instrumental or

use value. Ecology or environment is nothing but the storehouse of materials and it

has only use value and nothing more than that. The main objective of environmental

ethics is to restore intrinsic values to all natural communities and thereby ensure

environmental justice. In this regard, there develops biocentrism which claims that all

biotic communities have intrinsic value. Biocentric ethics represents a significant

departure from traditional ethical thinking in many different ways. Biocentric ethics

seeks to avoid the moral hierarchy implicit in traditional theories. Biocentric ethics is

much more inclusive of the natural world by taking life itself as the source of moral

value. It thus involves a radical shift in ethical thinking by extending moral standing

too much of the natural world. However, many would say that biocentrism is not

enough to break with anthropocentric tradition. It has already been said that the basic

objective of environmental ethics is to bring non-anthropocentrism instead of

anthropocentrism. In this direction, biocentrism is the first attempt through which

equal values to all biotic communities has been established. Biocentrism, we think,

does not contain the full force of non-anthropocentrism. There are other varieties of

approach which are directly associated with non-anthropocentrism and all these

theories belong to eco-philosophy or eco-centric philosophy. Eco-philosophy gives

14
both an adequate environmental and an adequate moral consideration to non-living

natural objects as well as to ecological systems. Ecological ethics should be holistic in

nature because it deals with ecological wholes such as ecosystems as well as non-

living natural objects and their mutual and interdependent relationship. It states that

like biotic communities, abiotic communities deserve direct moral consideration. It is

absent in the Biocentric approach. Biocentric thinkers claim that environmental

concern with ecosystems such as wilderness area is not the same as a concern for the

individual trees, plants and animals that live within the wilderness. The wilderness

and other eco-systems such as forests, wetlands, prairies, and lakes are valuable in

their own right and therefore deserve moral consideration. Thus, biocentric ethics

does not or cannot account for the value that we attribute to these ecological wholes.

Eco-philosophy thus owes much to the science of ecology where special emphasis is

given to the study of the inter-actions of living organisms with each other and with

their non-living environments. Ecosystems, such as, forests, wetlands, lakes,

grasslands, deserts etc., are areas in which a variety of living and non-living

organisms interact in mutually beneficial ways with their living and non-living

environment. Ecologists under the realm of eco-philosophy, address much on towards

understanding and explaining the systematic interactions and dependencies among

non-living natural objects. This is where ecologists differ from traditional botanists

and zoologists. Traditional botanists and zoologists put emphasize on individual

organisms whereas ecologists at large give emphasize on interdependencies and

relationships. Thus, the main contention of ecological ethics is to acknowledge mutual

interrelation and interdependence among all natural communities. Here the distinctive

properties of biotic communities are ignored. Eco-centric ethics and Eco philosophies

thus focus more on the ecological communities formed on the basis of

15
interdependencies (predator prey relationship) instead of individual organisms. This is

where the distinction between anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism actually

hinges on. Anthropocentrism focusses on everything with regard to man, whereas

non-anthropocentrism gives no importance to man or individual organisms. Instead it

puts emphasize more on mutual dependencies and mutual relationships. It forfeits

individualism, subjectivism, and dualism. Thus, eco-philosophy is holistic rather than

individualistic where ecology plays a major role in each of the eco-centric

philosophies. It appeals to ecology for taking its conclusion. One thing should be kept

in mind that ecology and ecological science are not altogether the same. Ecologists do

not completely agree on proper scientific methods, models and conclusions. Ecology

has not become a single, unified science. Secondly, it is not clear what type of ethical

conclusion can be drawn from scientific observations. Thus, the relevance of ecology

to ethics is always an open question. Eco-philosophy is primarily concerned with

values. It develops philosophical theories from ethical perspectives; it focuses to

include value questions beyond moral ones. Accordingly, it would be more relevant in

dealing with the term wilderness as the single umbrella term of ecosystem.

It is claimed that wilderness areas are prominent examples of natural ecosystems and

therefore preservation of wilderness areas is at the forefront of many environmental

disputes. Biocentric theory does not include anything about wilderness areas because

of their abiotic nature. In fact, any ethical consideration seems unlikely to account

easily for the value of wilderness. How to we understand the wilderness? How and

why we value it? How do we relate to and manage wilderness areas? These are the

central issues of eco-philosophy or eco-centrism.

16
The Value of the Wilderness

The US Wilderness Act of 1964 defines wilderness as those areas “where the earth

and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor

who does not remain.”10 The wilderness denotes an area unspoiled and undisturbed by

human activity. The Wilderness Act allows the federal government to set aside large

tracts of public land to protect them from development. Such areas are set aside for

the use and enjoyment of the American people. Rather wilderness areas are strictly

controlled by the federal government for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. Of

course some activities, such as, hiking camping, non-motorized boating, and some

hunting and fishing are allowed and some other activities, such as, commercial

activities like mining and timber harvesting and permanent buildings or road

construction are not allowed. Thus, wilderness areas are controlled by the federal

governed for maintaining biodiversity for the future. Few wilderness areas are

untrammeled by man even though many areas where humans are only visitors remain.

Humans inhabit much of the globe and human activities affect the entire earth. The

effect of pollution on the climate and atmosphere is one example among many of the

detrimental impact of human activity that threatens and destroys human livelihoods

across the world. In addition, we observe that in certain areas, wildernesses have been

constructed by man. This is a result of constant human activity dislocating the balance

of the nature.Therefore, it is necessary to preserve and manage these wildernesses. .

More importantly, the decision to set aside and preserve a wilderness area involves

the active management of the wilderness. This decision therefore involves ethical

questions of how we should manage wilderness ecosystems. Should forest fires be

suppressed or allowed to burn? Should species be reintroduced to areas in which they

10
Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C 1131 (a)

17
once lived? Are the policies for wilderness beneficial to humans? Should we preserve

some natural state? In America, there are plenty of wilderness areas still relatively

undisturbed by human activity and relatively undisturbed by permanent human

settlements. This is equally true in other countries including India. Of course, the law

of the state can vary from country to country. It also depends on the quality and

consciousness and awareness of the people or citizens. In fact, a significant portion of

environmental activism is aimed at protecting and preserving these areas. As

preservation of wilderness areas has prime importance towards retaining the balance

of environment and biodiversity, it must be addressed by environmental ethics.

Otherwise, the very objective of environmental ethics would remain incomplete. The

question then arises: what principles should guide human interaction with the

wilderness? On what ethical basis should we protect the wilderness? Do wilderness

areas at all deserve moral consideration? Should we then actively manage the

wilderness areas or should we remain passive for the same? Do we have a moral and

ethical responsibility to restore, protect and preserve wilderness areas that have been

developed? What exactly would count as restoration?

If we carefully examine our responsibility with regard to many ethical traditions, it

seems to us that the responsibility towards wilderness actually derives from other

responsibilities. Tom Regan in this regard argues that ecology would be protected if

only we were to “show the proper respect for the rights of the individuals who make

up the biotic community”11. For Regan, the very concept of responsibility is

interlinked with other forms of responsibility. The responsibility towards wilderness

areas simply does not make any sense if we do not respect individual animals for

which the areas are protected by laws. That is why Regan inclines to say that our

11
Regan, Tom, The Case for Animal Rights, Berkeley; University of California Press, 1983, p.363.

18
responsibility concerning habitat actually derives from our responsibilities to

individual animals, namely, mammals in Regan’s sense, that inhabit that areas.

According to Regan, we have no direct responsibility to habitat or wilderness areas

themselves. There would be nothing wrong in destroying the wilderness areas if the

interests of humans and certain animals are not there. It would certainly be the case

that at times respect and protection of the habitat and or inhabitants does not augur

well for the ecosystem. For example, showing proper respect for the rights of deer

might well have disastrous ecological effects on the area in which deer population is

beyond the carrying capacity of the land. The same anxiety is being expressed in the

case of increasing population in the third world countries where excessive deer might

well have disastrous ecological effects. An overpopulation of deer could well

overwhelm the population of various plant species. It would have an adverse effect on

all other living things that interact with, and depend upon, that species.

How do we conceive the value of the wilderness? Wilderness management actually

hinges on our perception of the value of the wilderness. It was equally true even in the

case of traditional or classical ethics. Individual perception or the perception of the

moral agent would be the hallmark of morality. One primary role of descriptive ethics

is to make explicit the models and metaphors that shape our understanding of the

world. The term ‘wilderness’ is also used to refer to a wild or untamed area and in this

sense wilderness would be a threat to human survival as it is cruel, harsh, and

perilous. In the old and New Testaments, the term wilderness is described as a barren

and desolate place. Humans truly were only visitors there because prospects for long-

term survival outside a settlement were bleak. Having said that, wilderness has also a

deeper symbolic meaning. Even it was said that the wilderness not only is dangerous

to humans, it is home to the devil. It is the antithesis of Eden and the Promised Land.

19
Even in Nomadic culture we have an interesting perception of wilderness. While

illustrating it. L.S. Bear in his book about the Native American tribe, the Oglala Sioux

said, “We do not think of great open plains, the beautiful rolling hills, and the winding

streams with tangled growth as “wild”. Only to the white man was nature a

“wilderness” and only to him was the land “infested” with “wild” animals and

“savage” people. To us it was tame … Not until the hairy man from the East came and

with brutal frenzy heaped injustices upon us and the families we loved was it “wild”

for us.”12(L.S. Bear: 1993).Thus, there was a mythological and mystical interpretation

of an uninhabited wilderness, where it was believed devils worshiped. According to

many, the wilderness was indeed the “Devil’s den,” home to “savages” trapped in “

the snare of the Devil,” “men transformed into beasts”, serving as “slaves of Satan”.13

Even the Puritan model gives rise to an ambiguous attitude toward the wilderness.

Thus, it may be assumed that the wilderness was an area to be avoided and feared. It

was an area deserted by God and home to the devil, humans were suffered and died in

the wilderness. From another perspective, the wilderness represented an escape from

oppression, at least a temporary haven on which they could build the Promised Land.

The Puritans believed that their faith was being tested in the New England wilderness.

The Puritan model thus encouraged an aggressive and antagonistic attitude towards

wilderness. The wilderness must be tamed, new land must be conquered, a new Eden

is established where humans are called to subdue and master the wilderness. The land

is developed, improved and its value is enhanced when the wilderness is cleared. John

Locke offered us a new model through which he preached that by human labor the

wilderness can be converted into private personal property. Lockean model thus sees

the wilderness as real estate, as a commodity to be owned and used. Its value is a
12
Bear, L. S., Land of the Spotted Eagle, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993, p.45.
13
White, John. The Planter’s Plea, quoted in Peter Carroll, Puritanism and the Wilderness, New York:
Columbia University Press, 1069, p.11.

20
function of the human labor. In this sense, the wilderness represents great potential to

serve human ends; it is relatively passive, it is just there, serving no purpose other

than that of the owners. It is a wasteland and it would remain so unless and until put

to human use.

There is a strong predilection or preference for using the wilderness for human’

purpose; otherwise it would remain wasted potential. There we perceive the tussle

between Locke and other conservationists. Gifford is one conservationist who stands

against Locke’s model of wilderness. He identified the wilderness as being full of

resources and valued it primarily for the commodities it produced. However, those

who sought to control and exploit the wilderness in pursuit of personal fortune shared

the Lockean assumption that the value of the wilderness is a function of human use.

For them, the wilderness should be controlled and managed for human use and they

disagreed over the range of beneficiaries of these resources.

A third model, known as romantic model, of the wilderness, can also be traced to

early American roots. The romantic model views the wilderness as a symbol of

innocence and purity, conceiving the wilderness as the last residual area of unspoiled

and uncorrupted nature. In contrast to the Puritan model, the romantic model

identifies the wilderness with Paradise, the Garden of Eden, a place where people can

turn to escape the corrupting influences of civilization.

From Ecology to Philosophy

Ecology, as a distinct science, is little more than one hundred years old. It was first

used by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel in the 1960s. Haeckel combined two

Greek words: oikos, meaning ‘household’ or ‘home’ and logos meaning ‘study of’.

Thus, ecology is the science that studies living organisms in their home or

21
environment. The organic model perhaps is the earliest model to guide ecological

science. According to this model, individual species were related to their environment

just as organs were related to the body. Just as an organism grows through

developmental stages towards a mature level, so too, do ecological households grow,

develop, and mature. Thus, ecological environments can therefore be described as

healthy, diseased, young, mature and the like. According to this model, ecological

whole is functioning just like an organic whole where each natural community, biotic

and abiotic, are inter-related and interdependence with each other. Underlying an

organism is a parts to whole relationship. If the natural world goes through a normal

and natural development process that has evolved over millions of years, we at least

ought to proceed cautiously when we interfere with it. Ecological systems have a

natural telos and we can determine in a scientifically objective manner what is good

and proper for that system. Thus, we may take this organic model as a guide for better

understanding of ecological organisms. In this organic model, the ecologist is like a

physician. Just as the physician studies anatomy and physiology to determine the

normal and proper function of the body, the ecologist studies a habitat, temperature

range, and rainfall, soil conditions, and so on to determine the normal and proper

functioning of the area. Just like a physician, the ecologist can then diagnose

environmental problems and prescribe treatment to ensure a healthy and balanced

organism.

However, by the early twentieth century, the organic model has begun to fall out of

favor among ecologists. For them, the organic model is mistaken on both scientific

and philosophical grounds. Ecologists began to see that the interactions among

species, among plants and animals, and among the biotic and abiotic elements (the

soil, climate, nutrients) is more complex and variable than the organic model

22
suggested. The organic model also tends to treat the abiotic elements of a habitat as

simply the location or the passive environment in which the super-organism grows

and lives. Having said this, critics want to say how this abiotic environment plays a

more active role in the functioning of the ecological process. However, the concept of

ecosystem has several advantages over the organic concept. Firstly, it eliminates any

reference to a super organism or complex organism. Secondly, the system concept is

well grounded in more mainstream science. Thirdly, the ecosystem concept is open to

the important role that abiotic elements play in ecological processes. Finally, the

ecosystem concept preserves the key ecological idea that ecological wholes are a

fundamental part of nature. Ecology contributes by observing and explaining the

integration, connection, and dependencies within and among ecological wholes. It

also claims that nature is not reducible to a collection of interdependent and isolated

parts. The whole is not itself a being or organism with an independent life, rather it is

simply a collection of living and non-living elements organized in a determinate way.

In this regard, a key concept, namely, the ‘feedback loop’ is introduced. It means that

elements within an ecosystem are related not simply in linear and causal ways but in

more complex ways characterized as feedback loops. It actually intends to says that

the elements within a system not only are affected by other elements but they in turn

produce effects upon other elements in a dynamic network of interconnections. This

feedback works to maintain a balance or equilibrium within the entire system.

More specifically, it can be said that the structure of ecosystems can be explained in

terms of the feeding relationships among species within the ecosystem. The network

of relationships within an ecosystem is a network of food chains. Species are located

at different ‘trophic levels’. However, during the mid-twentieth century, the

ecosystem has become the standard model for ecological science. The notion of a

23
feeding relationship was developed into a community model and some early

defenders of the community model were motivated by a desire to refute the Darwinian

emphasis on competition and conflict among species. For them, nature is designed as

a household with each member cooperating and contributing to the whole. Thus, in a

sense studying nature’s household is at par with studying ‘nature’s economy’. Elton’s

community model therefore appeared as a functional model where individuals are

identified by the food function that they perform in the system. This system may be

comprehended from economic perspective as well. Here some members function as

producers, some others as consumers. Accordingly, the commodity is food and

ecological communities can be described as ‘food chains’. The law of ecology thus

describes the processes of producing, distributing, and consuming food. An individual

species’ function within a food chain, its ecological niche in Elton’s terms, is

determined by what it eats and what eats it. It thus seems that the idea of food chain is

probably the most familiar concept of the community model where some organisms

appeared as ‘producers’ manufacture their food and other organisms appeared as

‘consumers’ dependent upon producers, directly or indirectly, for their food source.

At the end of the food chain, decomposers feed on deed organic material and in turn

break it down into inorganic molecules. The inorganic molecules can be reused by

producers whereas the decomposers are in turn eaten by worms, insects and other

organisms. In this energy model, the focus of ecological research is on the ecosystem

as an energy system or circuit. Even Aldo Leopold while developing his idea of land

ethics talked in favor of energy system. He then claimed that since all ecological or

land community is functioning through energy system, they are all alive. Accordingly,

they should be respected and honored. The ecologist thus studies the flow of energy

through an eco-system. Thus, ecosystem appears as another physical or mechanical

24
system. The important dimension of energy model is that it breaks down the

distinction between biotic and abiotic or living and non-living components of the

ecosystem. As a result of that, it moves towards non-anthropocentrism instead of

anthropocentrism. The energy model thus is being treated as an important aspect of

eco-philosophy or eco-centric philosophy. It states that the abiotic components like

solar energy, temperature, water, chemical molecules, and the like are equally

important elements in the system.

When we talk of eco-philosophy, we can try to understand the flow of energy through

an ecosystem parallels to the flow of food through the food chain. Photosynthesis is

the process through which solar energy breaks the chemical bonds of carbon dioxide

and water molecules. This photosynthesis process eventually controls the energy

circuit of ecosystems. Ecologists can account for ecosystems in terms of energy that

flows through various chemical, biological and climate cycles. Of course, the energy

cycles of interest to the ecologist are cycles that support life and are a part of life

cycles. Thus to evaluate and examine the process of life cycles through ecological

system of organisms is the task of the philosophers.

Ethics deals with the process of evaluation. It tells us and also guides us to what type

of eco-system or energy circuit is good or bad for mankind and its future generations.

It tells us what we should do in various alternative situations. When we consider the

ethical and policy implications that many environmentalists wish to draw from

ecology, we can see the relevance of different models. People interested in bringing

holism into the ethical domain. The organic model suggests that ecosystems are

independent living organisms and we can reason to evaluate conclusions concerning

ecosystems from value parameter. The value judgments about health, disease,

immature, developed are particularly useful if we are seeking to restore an ecosystem

25
in its natural form. The organic model would also be useful for those who want to

argue for moral standing for ecosystems. In short, it can be said that if the ecosystem

is an organism, it might well possess minimal criteria for moral standing. In the recent

past, the British scientist James Lovelock and American biologist Lynn Margulis have

suggested that the earth itself can be understood as a living organism. Much of

Lovelock’s writings are directed towards the concepts of feedback loops and

equilibrium and just by giving the entire system a name Gaia, this view suggests

sympathy for the organic model. Not surprisingly, Lovelock is a defender of Gaia

hypothesis which criticizes human activities that would degrade and pollute the living

planet. In fact, the Gaia hypothesis is a powerful source of ethical arguments towards

protecting and conserving the natural environment. The only problem that we

anticipate when conceiving ecological matters in relation to ethical perspective is to

involve ourselves with the great never ending philosophical debate between the fact-

value (Is-Ought) dichotomy. Ethics deals with evaluative statements and ecological

matters are factual in nature. Thus, to evaluative ecology from ethical perspective is to

mix up the dichotomy between fact and value. Philosophers over the years have

attempted to minimize the gulf between fact and value but nothing has been taken into

account without begging questions. Even many famous philosophers like Moore,

anticipated the ‘naturalistic fallacy’ of just such an attempt. For Moore, evaluative

terms are non-natural and factual terms are natural. Therefore, one cannot be deduced

from the other in the real sense of the term. However, many would say that since

something is good or right is solely based on a description of what is natural, there is

nothing wrong to comprehended ecology from ethical perspective. Nothing can be

dissected from ethics in the normal sense of the term. To deduce one statement from

another statement is problematic and philosophers have mostly been unsuccessful in

26
doing so. But it is a fact that we can claim some ethical meaning in factual statement

and nobody can deny it. Here we are talking in favor of the implicit meaning of

language. When someone shouts: Fire! the implicit meaning of it is that ‘everyone

should leave from this place immediately’. This implicit meaning of language cannot

be denied. We follow it in our day to day life and in turn we are benefited out of this.

It has become accepted and is absorbed into our society or community. Having said

this, philosophers including Plato, Moore and others were burdened with this problem

and it is continuing even today as well. Plato in his Republic showed many of the

confusions that underlie the view that identifies justice with the natural property:

‘advantage of the stronger’. The eighteenth century philosopher, David Hume also

made the distinction between ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’. It challenges the grounds for proving

that ‘this is the ways things are’ is logically distinct from the grounds for proving that

“this is the way things ought to be’. Thus it remains to be an open question. The

impact of this philosophical debate persists today and ecologists and

environmentalists still grapple with it. For them, nature will find its best way to attain

stability, balance, and harmony. There is no need for human intervention with regard

to ethical perspective. The natural harmony and cooperation within ecosystems guide

us toward a policy of respect for nature’s way and the preservation of natural systems.

Having said this, we might just conclude that because nature does work towards

balance and no humans’ intervention is required, still we as humans can be much

more sanguine about our interactions with nature. Humans at present can know the

mechanisms through which natural balance can be maintained and we are in an even

better position to manage and control the ecosystem. Accordingly, we as humans can

learn and manage the harmony of natural process on the basis of various accounts.

27
So far we have explained and analyzed the dimension of environmental and

environmental ethics from various perspectives. The main objective of the dissertation

is to address specifically on eco-philosophy where matters relating to the value of

non-living natural organisms is considered. Eco-philosophy covers the broad area of

environmental ethics. It mainly focuses on non-anthropocentrism instead of

anthropocentrism. In fact, non-anthropocentrism sets up the tone of environmental

ethics in general. In fact, the foundation of environmental ethics is based on the

approach of non-anthropocentrism where all natural communities, biotic as well as

abiotic, are treated equally not on the basis of distinctive properties they possess but

on the basis of predator- prey relationship among all biotic communities. As a result

of that, within the realm of eco-philosophy or ecosophy there is nothing inferior or

superior, there is no question of exploitation and subjugation of one species by

another, there is no perception of dualism, individualism, subjectivism, egoism. All

are equals in the sense that all have equal value. It thus ensures environmental justice

from the perspective of value. Here humans’ dominance over other species has

completely been forfeited. Instead of subjectivism, it ensures holism. Thus, eco-

philosophy banks on environmental holism. Environmental holism is the unifying

idea for eco-philosophy or eco-centric theories. It asserts that the whole is more than

the sum of its parts. Thus, the essence of eco-centrism is the essence of holism that

lies in deep philosophical inquiry. Eco-philosophy works along with this line and

eventually draws the limits of environmental holism. Its main contention is to set up a

pure form of non-anthropocentrism as a form of ‘metaphysical holism’ based on the

assumption that the wholes exist apart from their parts and as a result of that the

wholes are real, perhaps more real than their constituent parts.

***

28