Environmental Ethics: From Theory to Practice

Transcription

1 Environmental Ethics: From Theory to Practice Marion Hourdequin Companion Website Material Chapter 4 Companion website by Julia Liao and Marion Hourdequin

2 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE Chapter Outline Chapter 4. The social dimensions of environmental problems Introduction Ecofeminism Dualisms, up/down thinking, and the logics of domination Varieties of ecofeminism Objections and concerns Theoretical and practical significance of ecofeminism For further thought Environmental justice Justice in the present Three cases of environmental injustice Theories of environmental justice Justice for the future For further thought Conclusion: Interspecies justice? Anthropocentrism and nonanthropocentrism revisited Further reading Key points Introduction Extensionist approaches to environmental ethics pay limited attention to relationship among human beings. Ecofeminism and environmental justice both call our attention to the connections between social structures and environmental problems. Ecofeminism stresses commonalities between all forms of domination, and particularly between the domination of women and the domination of nature. Environmental justice focuses on unfairness in the distribution of environmental burdens and benefits. It has both intragenerational and intergenerational dimensions.

3 COMPANION WEBSITE MATERIAL CHAPTER 4 Ecofeminism Ecofeminism is based on the core idea that the domination of women and the domination of nature are linked in important ways. Ecofeminists believe that understanding these linkages is crucial. The linkages between various forms of oppression and domination are often rooted in dualistic modes of thinking, in which opposites are conceived as contradictory and mutually exclusive. For example, nature and culture are often considered mutually exclusive concepts. In such a view, humans belong to culture, and therefore are completely separate from nature. Conceptual dualisms are often tied to value dualisms, in which one member of a binary pair is valued over the other. Culture, for example, might be valued, while nature is devalued. This, when combined with what Karen Warren calls logics of domination, can lead to the subordination and domination of the devalued member of the binary pair. Because ecofeminism includes many different ideas and approaches, it is best understood as a general theoretical approach or perspective, not a specific and fixed ethical theory. Many ecofeminists seek to break down dualistic modes of thought and develop more flexible conceptual categories. For example, challenging the reason emotion dichotomy may open up a deeper understanding of how reason and emotion interact and inform one another. Ecofeminists focus on many different issues, from animal ethics to international development. For example, ecofeminist Vandana Shiva believes that the Western model of economic development harms both women and the environment by devaluing both. Some critics caution that ecofeminism may reinforce gender essentialism insofar as it suggests a fundamental connection between women and nature. Instead of challenging the male female dichotomy, such versions of ecofeminism may simply reverse the existing hierarchy by placing women and stereotypically feminine characteristics on top. However, defenders of ecofeminism generally deny an essential connection between women and nature and work to challenge confining gender categories.

4 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE Ecofeminists not only challenge traditional categories, they often challenge traditional philosophical methodologies. For example, Karen Warren argues that narrative has an important role to play in environmental ethics. Narrative highlights relationships and ethical attitudes that traditional arguments may fail to capture. Narrative can also emphasize the situational and context-dependent dimensions of ethical reasoning. Environmental justice In the United States, racial minorities are disproportionately burdened by living in polluted and toxic environments. Two examples of this type of environmental injustice in the United States include the 1982 Warren County, North Carolina polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) dump, and ongoing Native American exposure to nuclear radiation. Environmental injustice is also a global problem, as illustrated by the exportation of electronic waste from developed nations to hazardous dumps in poorer countries. Environmental justice has two key dimensions: substantive and procedural. Substantive justice is concerned with fair outcomes (e.g., ensuring that everyone experiences a base level of environmental quality). Procedural justice is concerned with fair processes (e.g., ensuring that each person is able to participate in government decisions that will affect his or her welfare). One possible principle of substantive environmental justice would hold that environmental burdens and benefits should be distributed equally. However, this principle seems both practically and theoretically overambitious. Wenz s Principle of Commensurate Burdens and Benefits holds that those who enjoy the greatest benefits from environmentally harmful practices should also bear the greatest burdens for those practices. Although this principle seems theoretically fair, it may be difficult to convince the biggest consumers (who also tend to be the wealthiest and most politically powerful) to bear the biggest burdens. Procedural justice is complicated by the fact that equal opportunity to participate in a process does not guarantee equal

5 COMPANION WEBSITE MATERIAL CHAPTER 4 recognition. Government policies and processes often fail to adequately consider the different viewpoints of certain individuals or social groups. Procedural justice is not sufficient to ensure substantive justice, and vice versa, but the two types of justice are importantly linked. Much philosophical discussion regarding intergenerational environmental justice deals with the debate over whether today s generation can have moral obligations to nonexistent future people. One objection to intergenerational obligations derives from the fact that future generations are not party to the social contract and not bound by relations of mutual obligation. Another objection holds that we cannot have obligations to future people because future people are currently nonexistent, and we can t have moral duties to things that don t exist. A third objection to intergenerational obligations derives from Parfit s nonidentity problem. According to Parfit, the actions we take have consequences that eventually influence who will be alive in the future. Therefore, distant future generations cannot claim to be harmed by current actions that degrade the environment, because without those actions they wouldn t have existed at all. Had we taken a different path, different people would have existed. A response to Parfit s problem holds that justice is based the idea that no person should be deprived of the basic resources needed to live and flourish. Therefore, the current generation has obligations to whatever people happen to exist in the future. On this view, our obligations are not to specific people, but to future generations more generally. Conclusion: Interspecies justice? Anthropocentrism and nonanthropocentrism revisited Discussions of environmental justice and discussions of nonanthropocentric environmental ethics have often occurred on different tracks, and some philosophers see a conflict between

6 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE saving nature and helping people live healthier and better lives. One challenge for environmental ethics as a whole is to bring together these two strands of thought and consider more carefully how they might be reconciled. Questions for thought and discussion 1 How does Vandana Shiva show that the effects of economic development on women are tied to the effects of development on the environment? What changes could address the problems she raises? 2 Are the oppression of women and the oppression of the environment more closely linked than other forms of oppression? Why or why not? 3 Karen Warren argues that an adequate environmental ethic must be feminist and an adequate feminism must address the environment. What is the best argument for this claim? What is the best argument against it? 4 Can you think of an example of environmental injustice in your community, state, or nation? How might this injustice be addressed? 5 In our decisions, should we weigh the interests of future people less than the interests of present people? Why or why not? 6 Give an example showing how environmental justice and nonanthropocentric environmental ethics might conflict. How might this conflict be resolved? 7 Give an example showing how environmental justice and nonanthropocentric environmental ethics might support one another. Care ethics Dualism Ecofeminism Gender essentialism Key terms

7 COMPANION WEBSITE MATERIAL CHAPTER 4 Intergenerational justice Intragenerational justice Logic of domination Nonidentity problem Principle of Commensurate Burdens and Benefits Procedural justice Recognition Social contract theory Substantive justice Online resources A just West, High Country News blog on environmental justice issues in the American West: blog Environmental Justice and Climate Change initiative: ejcc.org/ Feminists for Animal Rights: Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations: intergenerationaljustice.org/ Natural Resources Defense Council page on environmental justice: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency page on environmental justice: Women s Environment and Development Organization: Women s Voices for the Earth: World Future Council: