Class # 15: Philip Cafaro, “Virtue Ethics,” in Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy Ronald Sandler, “A Theory of Environmental Virtue”

In Philip Cafaro excerpt on Virtue Ethics we are introduced to what environmental virtue ethics is, influential woks that provide distinct viewpoints on this branch of ethics, and criticisms and defenses on it. This branch of ethics focuses on issues of character, excellence, and human flourishing. It argues that protecting the environment is necessary to promote human well being or flourishing. Philip Cafaro argues that Thoreau’s writings provide a coherent and inspiring environmental virtue ethic which links attentiveness to nature to human excellence and flourishing. By restraining physical consumption and recognizing nature’s value people enrich their lives. Cafaro also argues that Thoreau’s evolutionary experimentalism, in which human nature and hence human virtue may change over time, are more plausible foundation for environmental ethics. Ronald Sandler’s developed a typology that does justice to the many ways character traits may be environmental virtues. His typology includes virtues of sustainability, communion with nature and respect for nature, stewardship, and environmental activism. Environmental virtue ethicists try to answer criticism by developing specific criteria for what makes a virtue a virtue. Most of them ground their general accounts of virtue in a substantive account of human flourishing. Also, environmental virtue ethicists embrace anthropocentricism because they believe it will actually motivate people to protect nature. Sandler presents to us the natural goodness approach to better understand what makes a character trait a virtue. The thought driving this approach is that scientific naturalism and a naturalistic understanding of human beings provide a presumptive case that the concept of “goodness” should not be radically transformed when used to evaluate human beings from when it is used to evaluate members of other species. This theory suggests what makes a character trait a virtue should be analogous to what makes a trait an excellence of individuals of other species. Therefore there is a standard for judging the goodness for individual members of their species.
            I agree with the modified version of the natural goodness thesis that allows for accountability of our meaningfulness, autonomy, and flourishing.  I believe human life compared to other species is very complex, because our well being is heavily tied to our mental health and capacities. For example being successful is an important ideological goal for many humans that contribute to their meaningfulness and flourishing. I also understand why many environmental ethicists have anthropocentric foundations when developing their theories. I think as humans we ought to care about the environment and other species not only in a way that benefits us, however realistically, when we tie our needs to caring for the environment in order to survive, it does provide us with more incentive to make better decisions regarding the environment. This may seem selfish, but we live in a bubble that prioritizes our needs and wants.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kenneth Goodpaster: On Moral Consideration

Kenneth Goodpaster leads us through many principles and perceptions of different philosophers to tackle the overall question, “ to whom principles of morality apply?” In order to begin to develop an answer for this question, we must first understand the framework of moral consideration, and then proceed to the application of this framework. Goodpaster presents to us distinct viewpoints on the sorts of entities that can and should receive moral consideration. He believes that neither rationality nor the capacity to experience pleasure and pain are necessary conditions on moral considerability. Instead, the simple act of being alive, for Goodpaster is a plausible criterion in terms of moral consideration. He believes that the universe of moral consideration is more complex that just individual persons and their joys ad sorrows. Goodpaster begins to draw the distinction between rights and considerability. He believes that the notion of rights are more specific that those of considerbaili...
Read more

Class #23: Heather Davis and Zoe Todd, “On the Importance of a Date, or Decolonizing the Anthropocene”

Heather Davis and Zoe Todd point out the failure of the Anthropocene, as a name to be assigned to today’s epoch. The start date that is being chosen for the Anthropocene is mid twentieth century 1964.  They are drawing connections saying that the Anthropocene, is explicitly linked to the beginnings of colonization. By linking the Anthropocene with colonization, it draws attention to the violence at its core, and calls for the consideration of Indigenous philosophies and processes of Indigenous self-governance as a necessary political corrective, alongside the self-determination of other communities and societies violently impacted by the white supremacist, colonial, and capitalist logics instantiated in the origins of the Anthropocene. They feel that the Anthropocene betrays itself in its name: in its reassertion of universality, it implicitly aligns itself with the colonial era. Heather Davis and Zoe Todd propose a 1610 start date to coincide with colonization p...
Read more

Rolston, Duties to Ecosystems

Holmes Rolston talks about the separate duties that humans and organisms owe to the ecosystem through distinct lenses. He states that the apparent harmony in ecosystems is superficial. Like business, politics, and sports ecosystems thrive on competition. He talks about how environmental necessity involves conflict, selection pressure, niche fittedness, environmental support, etc. These section pressures will routinely drive adaptation and counter adaptation; therefor the ecosystem is forcing a check on competitions by forced cooperation.   He believes us humans need to see that, an ecosystem has no centeredness at all, and we ought to simply value organisms for their evolutionary journey and purpose. The members of the biotic community have no shared needs; each species is individualistic in the sense that they are focused on the needs of their own survival.   He further explains how an ecosystem is far from being a satisfactory community, instead it is rath...
Read more